RE: [2.4 PATCH] bugfix: ARP respond on all devices

[Richard Underwood]

Alan Cox wrote:
> 
> One thing I agree with you about is that an ARP resolution for an
> address via one path should not block a resolution for it by another
> path since to begin with the two paths may be to different routers
> one of which is down.

Alan,

	I can't believe that you're advocating networking code where:

1) It's not predictable - the route of a packet depends on the ARP reply
generated due to a previous packet.

2) Linux will fail to communicate with the vast majority of routers under
some, fairly basic, conditions.

	I'm certain that Cisco (for example) won't change their ways. I
can't blame them, either - no one else does it this way and there's no good
reason for doing it like this either.

	I think I'm going to give up at this point because I know I'm not
going to get anywhere. A simple static ARP entry will fix my problems,
although I'd prefer a more generic solution.

	Good luck!

		Richard
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/