On Thu, Dec 06, 2001 at 12:59:39PM -0800, Bill Fenner wrote: > > Garrett and I discussed what IFF_NOARP should mean about 4-5 years > ago; we decided that it probably menat "no ARP". We discussed > the idea of seperating it out into two flags; "Don't reply to ARP" > and "don't pay attention to ARP" but decided to wait and see what > people thought. 4-5 years is probably enough time to wait =) > Heh, but only a few months ago IFF_NOARP started to DTRT.
> My proposal: keep IFF_NOARP, but add IFF_NOSENDARP and IFF_NOREPLYARP > (or something, I'm no good at making up names). I agree with Louie > that it makes sense for these to be per-interface as opposed to > Ruslan's sysctl. > What you propose is even more "flexible". :-) What's the purpose to send arp requests (!IFF_NOSENDARP) if we're not going to listen the replies (IFF_NOREPLYARP)? Also, ifnet.if_flags is declared "short" and is already fully allocated. Changing it to u_int64_t would mean introducing binary incompatibility, and what's worse, API changes, since ifreq.ifr_flags is also "short". OK, I have a proposal that should fit both opinions. I'll keep the net.link.ether.inet.static_arp to mean what it means now (keep ARP table static, no updates except from local process through a routing socket writes), and will add another sysctl that will switch the meaning of IFF_NOARP from "no arp" to "static arp on this interface". How about this? Cheers, -- Ruslan Ermilov Oracle Developer/DBA, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sunbay Software AG, [EMAIL PROTECTED] FreeBSD committer, +380.652.512.251 Simferopol, Ukraine http://www.FreeBSD.org The Power To Serve http://www.oracle.com Enabling The Information Age To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
