From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sat, 5 May 2001 19:28:22 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sat, 5 May 2001 19:28:13 -0400 Received: from pizda.ninka.net ([216.101.162.242]:37783 "EHLO pizda.ninka.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sat, 5 May 2001 19:27:53 -0400 From: "David S. Miller" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15092.35947.527339.828149@pizda.ninka.net> Date: Sat, 5 May 2001 16:27:39 -0700 (PDT) To: dean gaudet Cc: Ben Greear , linux-kernel , Alan Cox , Andi Kleen , Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: [PATCH] arp_filter patch for 2.4.4 kernel. In-Reply-To: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: VM 6.75 under 21.1 (patch 13) "Crater Lake" XEmacs Lucid Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org dean gaudet writes: > also -- isn't it kind of wrong for arp to respond with addresses from > other interfaces? > > what if ip_forward is 0? or if there's some other sort of routing policy > in effect? This along with some other issues are why Alexey and myself want to do ARP filter in some other way. There are two sides to this story though, both with valid arguments. Ho hum... since things have settled down in the networking and this is being pushed again, I guess it's time to fire up the dialogue once more. Later, David S. Miller davem@redhat.com