Re: [2.4 PATCH] bugfix: ARP respond on all devices

[Andi Kleen]

Lars Marowsky-Bree <lmb@xxxxxxx> writes:

> Yes, both are "correct" in the sense that the RFC allows this
> interpretation. The _sensible_ interpretation for practical networking
> however is #2, and the only persons who seem to believe differently are
> those in charge of the Linux network code...

Just spend a minute to think about multihoming and failover
between multiple links on a host.

For that the Linux default makes a lot of sense - you get automatic
transparent failover between interfaces without any effort.

In my experience everybody who wants a different behaviour use some
more or less broken stateful L2/L3 switching hacks (like ipvs) or
having broken routing tables. While such hacks may be valid for some
uses they should not impact the default case.

-Andi

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/