* Shawn Yarbrough ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) spake thusly: > > > 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. > > > > You don't agree that it's what's happening, or you don't agree that it > > should be the way that the kernel operates? > > The latter, as you guessed correctly. > > I think the kernel is applying IP routing rules to ethernet ARP replies. > I don't think it should be doing this, because an ARP reply is clearly > related to a physical ethernet address. ARP has nothing to do with IP > networks, only with ethernet networks and with a single IP address. > > At least that's how I understand ARP. > > Or is an ARP reply actually an IP packet? Maybe it is, but I don't think > so, I'm assuming it's an ethernet packet.
ARP is a part of TCP/IP suite, it's just that it's a network layer protocol (like IP & ICMP). ARP has a lot to do with IP networks, it provides mapping between *IP* address and MAC address. ARP packet is an ARP packet. > All I care about is that when ethernet address E1 is bound to IP address > I1, everybody else on the network knows it. The kernel is telling > everybody else on the network that E0 = I1, which is wrong. Then the kernel is b0rked. LKML is at vger.kernel.org (hint). Dima -- Backwards compatibility is either a pun or an oxymoron. -- PGN -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
