On 13 Jul 2002, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Sat, 2002-07-13 at 17:21, Bill Davidsen wrote:
> > In the absense of the proxy_arp flag, I would not expect that reply,
> > the IP is not on that NIC. Before I "fix" that, is this intended
> > behaviour for some reason? Will I break something if I add check logic?
> > Is there something in /proc/sys/net/ipv4 I missed which will avoid this
> > response?
>
> Your suspicion and the reality don't match. The RFC's leave the
> situation unclear and some OS's do either. Newer 2.4 has arpfilter which
> can be used to control what actually occurs
I tried setting conf/arp_filter, proxy_arp, and looked at rp_filter but
didn't try anything with it. I'm using tcpdump on the machine sending
who-has and getting two packets back. I tried the obvious setting eth0 and
1, setting default, and setting 'all." The current settings, just the NICs
in question, are producing two arp-replies with settings:
newsmst01:conf# for n in */arp_filter;do echo $n; cat $n; done
all/arp_filter
0
default/arp_filter
0
eth0/arp_filter
1
eth1/arp_filter
1
lo/arp_filter
0
newsmst01:conf#
This was with 2.4.19-pre10ac2+one smp locking patch.
Oh well, thanks anyway, if it's intended to work that way I'll look at
making it so.
-- bill davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com> CTO, TMR Associates, Inc Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979.- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jul 15 2002 - 22:00:27 EST