From: "Jonas Danielsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 09:30:11 +0100
> 2007/11/16, David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > From: "Jonas Danielsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 22:40:13 +0100 > > > > > Is there a reason that the target hardware address isn't the target > > > hardware address? > > > > > > Because of this, in cases where a choice can be made Linux will > > advertise what is most likely to result in successful communication. > > > > This is likely why we are changing that target address to the one of > > the interface actually sending back the reply rather than the zero > > value you used. > > > > In fact I think this information can be useful to the sender of > > the DAD request. > > > > There seem to be some confusion about what my patch really does. It > does not set the hardware address to a zero value. I knew you were talking about the IP address not the hardware address. > The reply from the Linux kernel in computer A, before the patch would look > like: > > Reply: > Opcode: reply (0x0002) > Sender HW: 00:AA.00:AA:00:AA > Sender IP: 192.168.0.1 > Target HW: 00:AA:00:AA:00:AA > Target IP: 192.168.0.1 And this is exactly a sensible response in my opinion. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
