Am 22.11.2023 um 12:00:52 Uhr schrieb Nicolas George:
> Thanks for clarifying. But AFAIK, with proxy ARP, the network mask
> covers all the networks covered by the proxy. That is not the case
> here.
Does your Router have a default route?
The it covers 0.0.0.0/0.
Am 22.11.2023 um 11:58:55 Uhr schrieb Nicolas George:
> I do not see what the router has to do with anything. Can you
> elaborate what you mean?
Proxy-ARP offers the possibility to answer ARP requests of addresses
outside the own subnet sitting on another ethernet link.
In normal cases that is
Marco Moock (12023-11-22):
> Sorry, not gracious-arp, proxy-arp can be responsible for that.
Thanks for clarifying. But AFAIK, with proxy ARP, the network mask
covers all the networks covered by the proxy. That is not the case here.
Regards,
--
Nicolas George
Marco Moock (12023-11-22):
> Are those networks on the same ethernet link?
No, they are on a different VLAN.
> Are some systems with wrong subnet masks on the link and the router has
> gratious ARP enabled?
I do not see what the router has to do with anything. Can you elaborate
what you mean?
Am 22.11.2023 um 11:51:36 Uhr schrieb Marco Moock:
> Are some systems with wrong subnet masks on the link and the router
> has gratious ARP enabled?
Sorry, not gracious-arp, proxy-arp can be responsible for that.
Am 22.11.2023 um 11:29:47 Uhr schrieb Nicolas George:
> As you can see, the server is on the …96.0/22 subnet, i.e. …96-…99,
> but it sees MAC addresses on the 100 and 103 networks.
Are those networks on the same ethernet link?
Are some systems with wrong subnet masks on the link and the router
Hi.
Since last we have four MAC addresses in the ARP table of a server that
should not be there:
$ ip route
default via XXX.XXX.98.254 dev eth0 onlink
XXX.XXX.96.0/22 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link src XXX.XXX.98.94
But:
$ ip neigh | grep -v 'XXX.XXX.9[6789]'
XXX.XXX.103.161 dev eth0
7 matches
Mail list logo
