On 26 Mar 2002 21:43:24 -0600 Shyamal Prasad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I don't think there is anything wrong or strange. The system knows > that there are two routes to the network, and it is free to use either > one as it pleases.
What everybody seems to be telling me is that because IP is routable, ARP replies are also routable, and the kernel is free to mix and match IP addresses with Ethernet interfaces however it likes according to it's IP routing conventions. I don't agree with this. ARP is the glue between a specific Ethernet address and a specific IP address. When I configured my network, I explicitly bound two IP addresses to two Ethernet addresses. The kernel SHOULD NOT be free to decide that I was wrong, randomly binding one IP address to the other Ethernet address after the fact. But that's what it clearly seems to be doing: 1) the ARP request for IP address .131 reaches the kernel 2) the kernel notices that IP address .131 is bound to Ethernet address eth1, meaning that the kernel must now generate an ARP reply 3) the kernel decides to ignore the information it already has (that .131 equals eth1) and instead generates an ARP reply falsely advertising that .131 equals eth0 4) the ARP reply goes out on eth0 This is not an IP routing situation. IP .131 does not equal eth0. I don't think it can do #3. Yet it seems to be doing just that. I would be OK if it was only doing steps 1, 2, and 4. Step 4 would seem a little weird for an eth1 ARP reply but it wouldn't actually hurt anything IMVHO. But step 3 is effectively rebinding my IP to Ethernet assignments without my permission. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
