Hello,
On Thu, 19 Apr 2001, Sampsa Ranta wrote:
> So I wonder if this hidden feature or alike should be brought to 2.4 tree
> also?
The three flags that can control the ARP behavior in 2.2
(arp_filter, hidden and rp_filter) cover almost everything without
breaking any RFC826 ru
Hello,
On Thu, 19 Apr 2001, Sampsa Ranta wrote:
> Yes, I wan't that other routers only see the MAC address of the interface
> I assigned the IP address for if someone asks it by ARP. I also control
> outgoing traffic with routing. But how am I supposed to do this in 2.4
> enviroment?
I have a rathar strange way to first ask and then try to find the answer
on my own. But what I found was:
from http://www.appwatch.com/lists/linux-kernel/Week-of-Mon-20010122/018588.html
> > am most curious about is how it ending up being removed from the kernel
> > in the first place. It must
On Wed, 18 Apr 2001, Julian Anastasov wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> Sampsa Ranta wrote:
>
> > The code I used to do the trick at my network was as simple as this,
> > in function arp_rcv, the problem is ip_dev_find that does know if there
> > are other devices with same IP address.
>
> I don'
On Wed, 18 Apr 2001, Julian Anastasov wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> Sampsa Ranta wrote:
>
> > The code I used to do the trick at my network was as simple as this,
> > in function arp_rcv, the problem is ip_dev_find that does know if there
> > are other devices with same IP address.
>
> I don'
On Wed, 18 Apr 2001, Julian Anastasov wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> Sampsa Ranta wrote:
>
> > 23:38:25.278848 > arp who-has 194.29.192.38 tell 194.29.192.10 (0:50:da:82:ae:9f)
> > 23:38:25.278988 < arp reply 194.29.192.38 is-at 0:1:2:dc:d2:64 (0:50:da:82:ae:9f)
> > 23:38:25.279009 < arp reply 194.2
Hello,
Sampsa Ranta wrote:
> The code I used to do the trick at my network was as simple as this,
> in function arp_rcv, the problem is ip_dev_find that does know if there
> are other devices with same IP address.
I don't think this is your problem. You patch is not correct.
In
Hello,
Sampsa Ranta wrote:
> 23:38:25.278848 > arp who-has 194.29.192.38 tell 194.29.192.10 (0:50:da:82:ae:9f)
> 23:38:25.278988 < arp reply 194.29.192.38 is-at 0:1:2:dc:d2:64 (0:50:da:82:ae:9f)
> 23:38:25.279009 < arp reply 194.29.192.38 is-at 0:1:2:dc:d2:6c (0:50:da:82:ae:9f)
>
> The
Alan Cox wrote:
> > I was asking because I had this problem before (router with two cards
> > against one physical subnet) and arpwatch complained that the router kept
> > switching MACaddresses all the time.
> That sounds like a bug in arpwatch. A box can have multiple mac
> addresses. Its prob
To: Sampsa Ranta
Cc: linux-net; linux-kernel
Subject: Re: ARP responses broken!
Sampsa Ranta wrote:
> I have two interfaces that share same subnet, I call eth0 194.29.192.37
> and eth1 194.29.192.38. I have forwarding turned on, proxy arp is not
> neighter are redirects.
>
> Whe
Correction, that was on kernel v2.2.19
Sam
** Forwarded Message Follows ***
>To: "'Christopher Friesen'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Sampsa Ranta
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>From: "Bingner Sam J. Contractor RSIS" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 18:07:41 -
>
>I tested this with
L PROTECTED]]
>Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2001 4:25 AM
>To: Sampsa Ranta
>Cc: linux-net; linux-kernel
>Subject: Re: ARP responses broken!
>
>
>Sampsa Ranta wrote:
>
>> I have two interfaces that share same subnet, I call eth0 194.29.192.37
>> and eth1 194.29.192
> I was asking because I had this problem before (router with two cards
> against one physical subnet) and arpwatch complained that the router kept
> switching MACaddresses all the time.
That sounds like a bug in arpwatch. A box can have multiple mac addresses. Its
probably a tricky one to handle
On Tue, 17 Apr 2001, Eric Weigle wrote:
> Ok, I was ignorant of the arp filter functionality in 2.2. I found an old
> (probably painfully out-of-date) posting the patch Andi Kleen was referring to
> in the archive, but I've not used it.
> http://www.uwsg.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0101.2/
Ok, I was ignorant of the arp filter functionality in 2.2. I found an old
(probably painfully out-of-date) posting the patch Andi Kleen was referring to
in the archive, but I've not used it.
http://www.uwsg.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0101.2/1198.html
> I tought this for a while and this d
On Tue, 17 Apr 2001, Andi Kleen wrote:
[snip]
> > Does arpfilter exist in 2.4 kernels?
>
> Not yet, will be merged very soon. I can send you a patch if you need it urgently.
No I don't need it urgently.
I was asking because I had this problem before (router with two cards
against one physical s
On Tue, Apr 17, 2001 at 04:53:01PM +0200, Martin Josefsson wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Apr 2001, Andi Kleen wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Apr 16, 2001 at 03:26:19PM -0600, Eric Weigle wrote:
> > > Hello-
> > >
> > > This is a known 'feature' of the Linux kernel, and can help with load sharing
> > > and fault tol
On Tue, 17 Apr 2001, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 16, 2001 at 03:26:19PM -0600, Eric Weigle wrote:
> > Hello-
> >
> > This is a known 'feature' of the Linux kernel, and can help with load sharing
> > and fault tolerance. However, it can also cause problems (such as when one nic
> > in a multi
> but why would you want it to reply for the IP of the other interface even if
> it was NOT on the same subnet?
Because Linux is always answering to all its local IP addresses, regardless
of the Network interface. Even if you tun off the IP Forwarding.
This is by Designs, there are situation whe
Sampsa Ranta wrote:
> I have two interfaces that share same subnet, I call eth0 194.29.192.37
> and eth1 194.29.192.38. I have forwarding turned on, proxy arp is not
> neighter are redirects.
>
> When I flush local neighbor table in other machine I use to observe the
> response and ping the rout
On Mon, Apr 16, 2001 at 03:26:19PM -0600, Eric Weigle wrote:
> Hello-
>
> This is a known 'feature' of the Linux kernel, and can help with load sharing
> and fault tolerance. However, it can also cause problems (such as when one nic
> in a multi-nic machine fails and you don't know right away).
>
On Mon, 16 Apr 2001, Eric Weigle wrote:
> Hello-
>
> This is a known 'feature' of the Linux kernel, and can help with load sharing
> and fault tolerance. However, it can also cause problems (such as when one nic
> in a multi-nic machine fails and you don't know right away).
I tought this for a w
> oh great, now I wont be able to upgrade our kernels to 2.4 unless I find a
> utility to filter out the ARP requests?
"There's more than one way to do it" (see below)
> Why was this ability removed?
Apparently the decision was made to do it this way because it simplified the
fast path of the cod
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> The second one is the valid one, but both interfaces seem to answer to the
> broadcasted packet with their own ARP addresses.
it is because the kernel does not know if both interfaces are on one subnet,
or not. The easisets thing to solve this is t use
Hello-
This is a known 'feature' of the Linux kernel, and can help with load sharing
and fault tolerance. However, it can also cause problems (such as when one nic
in a multi-nic machine fails and you don't know right away).
There are three 'solutions' I know of:
* In recent 2.2 kernels, it w
25 matches
Mail list logo
