Hi,
> > >>> In contrast, on Linux (by default), it
> > >>> responds as long as the target IP address in ARP Request matches with
> > >>> any "local" IP address on the system, which is not necessarily an IP
> > >>> address assigned to the interface through which the ARP request is
> > >>> received.
> > But that ARP thing happens also with interfaces that are not part of
> > the bridge! Even if the interfaces are ifconfiged NOARP.
>
> This is not what I observed... which of the 3 bridging implementations
> (bridge, if_bridge, ng_bridge) have you seen this behaviour with?
Hummm, I am not sure
On Mon, Sep 19, 2005 at 08:49:28AM +0200, Peter van Dijk wrote:
> On FreeBSD, we solve this issue by assigning the IPs to lo0. For
> Linux, this approach works equally well and is what the Linux Virtual
> Server documentation recommends.
Oops.. the docs I read were for Linux 2.0. The docs for 2.2
On Mon, Sep 19, 2005 at 01:37:59PM +0700, Olivier Nicole wrote:
> OK, enabling bridge is useless unless you bridge a pair of interfaces :)
>
> But that ARP thing happens also with interfaces that are not part of
> the bridge! Even if the interfaces are ifconfiged NOARP.
This is not what I observe
On Mon, Sep 19, 2005 at 03:34:10AM +0100, Gary Palmer wrote:
> There is another side effect, which comes into view with certain
> configurations behind load balancers. Foundry has an option (I believe
> called "DSR" for Direct Server Return) which just fiddles with the MAC
> address of the dest
> 'Enabling' bridging is a no-op.. However, when you -configure- a
> couple of interfaces together in a bridge, they share this behaviour;
> but this is correct as bridging is supposed to effectively merge the
> chosen interfaces into one. This does not affect any other interfaces,
> which makes it
On Mon, Sep 19, 2005 at 01:06:19PM +0700, Olivier Nicole wrote:
> To me, it seems that FreeBSD does just that too once bridge is enabled.
'Enabling' bridging is a no-op.. However, when you -configure- a
couple of interfaces together in a bridge, they share this behaviour;
but this is correct as br
> What Motonori Shindo described is actually the default behaviour for
> Linux kernels (at least my 2.6.8-kernel does it by default). It could be
> seen as a sort of proxy-arp, but only for the host itself, not other
> systems. Let me try to describe when it happens. Say you have
> 192.168.42.4
Pieter de Boer wrote:
Is there any advantage/disadvantage in ARP implementation on FreeBSD
over that of Linux? Thanks.
I was unhappily surprised by this 'feature'. I find it pretty
counter-intuitive. I expect two interfaces to be seperated inside a
kernel, but Linux more or less binds them t
Chuck, Pieter, and Sam,
From: Sam Leffler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: ARP behavior in FreeBSD vs Linux
Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 10:51:30 -0700
> Pieter de Boer wrote:
> > Chuck Swiger wrote:
> >
> >>> In contrast, on Linux (by default), it
> >>>
Pieter de Boer wrote:
Chuck Swiger wrote:
In contrast, on Linux (by default), it
responds as long as the target IP address in ARP Request matches with
any "local" IP address on the system, which is not necessarily an IP
address assigned to the interface through which the ARP request is
received
Chuck Swiger wrote:
In contrast, on Linux (by default), it
responds as long as the target IP address in ARP Request matches with
any "local" IP address on the system, which is not necessarily an IP
address assigned to the interface through which the ARP request is
received.
This sounds like "pro
Motonori Shindo wrote:
On FreeBSD (and I guess most Operating Systems as well), ARP reply is
sent back only when the target IP address in ARP request matches with
one of the IP addresses assigned to the interface through which the
ARP Request is received.
This is correct behavior. Normally, yo
13 matches
Mail list logo
