On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 11:12:03PM +0100, Ralph Passgang wrote: > Am Donnerstag, 15. März 2007 17:31 schrieb Dirk Nehring: > > On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 03:08:07PM +0100, Ralph Passgang wrote: [...] > > > Waldemar told me, that he would like to enable this filter globally, so > > > if no one protests about it, we will enable it for branch/1.0 in 5 days > > > from now on. > > > > Hi Ralph, > > > > sounds logical to me. Perhaps you should make some tests with arp_ignore > > as well, see > > http://kb.linuxvirtualserver.org/wiki/Using_arp_announce/arp_ignore_to_disa > >ble_ARP. > > the arp_filter sysctrl setting solves the arp problem that might occour if the > same media is connected to more than just one port. I used this setting on > some linux routers in the past and never had a problem with arp_filter at > all. [...]
> Or is there a reason why we need arp_ignore? It seems to be more flexible, > because it knows more modes than just enabling it. I have no real experience in it. What I have heard that arp_ignore solves many problems in proxy-arp and ha enviroments. Normally, you are using: net.ipv4.conf.eth1.arp_ignore = 1 net.ipv4.conf.eth1.arp_announce = 2 if you don't want to advertise ethx arp (x!=1) over eth1. Here is a small explanatation: http://www.austintek.com/LVS/LVS-HOWTO/HOWTO/LVS-HOWTO.arp_problem.html#ratz_arp_announce I would suggest going with arp_filter at first, but testing the "new" arp_* options as well. Dirk _______________________________________________ freewrt-developers mailing list [email protected] https://www.freewrt.org/lists/listinfo/freewrt-developers
