|
Julian Anastasov wrote:
> In fact, the documentation is incorrect. There is no difference,
> all devices are reported in the ARP replies: lo, tunl and dummy. So, only
> the ARP patch can solve the problem. This can be tested using this
> configuration with any device (before the patch applied):
>
> Host A:
> eth:x 192.168.0.1
>
> Host B:
> eth:x 192.168.0.2
> lo, dummy, tunl: 192.168.0.3
>
> On host A try: ping 192.168.0.3
>
> Host B replies for 192.168.0.3 through 192.168.0.2 device
>
> So, the ARP problem means: "All local interfaces are reported"
> until the ARP patch is used. In fact, all ARP patches which use IFF_NOARP
> to hide the interface are incorrect. I don't expect them in the kernel.
Of course the ARP code in the kernel needs to be fixed so my filter code isn't
needed. Still, I'm confused by this statement. The IFF_NOARP flag determines
whether a device arp replies or not. What's wrong with honoring that?
If you mean that arp replies should never be sent on another interface, that is
what I currently believe to be correct.
> Regards,
>
> Julian Anastasov
sdw
--
OptimaLogic - Finding Optimal Solutions Web/Crypto/OO/Unix/Comm/Video/DBMS
sdw@xxxxxxx Stephen D. Williams Senior Consultant/Architect http://sdw.st
43392 Wayside Cir,Ashburn,VA 20147-4622 703-724-0118W 703-995-0407Fax 5Jan1999
----------------------------------------------------------------------
LinuxVirtualServer.org mailing list - lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe, e-mail: lvs-users-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: lvs-users-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
|
