From: Bill Fink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 00:16:07 -0500
> On Mon, 19 Nov 2007, Alexey Kuznetsov wrote:
>
> > 2. What's about your suggestion, I thought about this and I am going to
> > agree.
> >
> >Arguments, which convinced me are:
> >
> >- arping still works.
> >
On Mon, 19 Nov 2007, Alexey Kuznetsov wrote:
> Hello!
>
> > Is there a reason that the target hardware address isn't the target
> > hardware address?
>
> It is bound only to the fact that linux uses protocol address
> of the machine, which responds. It would be highly confusing
> (more than conf
Hello!
> Is there a reason that the target hardware address isn't the target
> hardware address?
It is bound only to the fact that linux uses protocol address
of the machine, which responds. It would be highly confusing
(more than confusing :-)), if we used our protocol address and hardware
addre
Bill Fink wrote, On 11/16/2007 08:26 PM:
...
> Regarding the Target IP, RFC 826 says:
>
> "The target protocol address is necessary in the request form
> of the packet so that a machine can determine whether or not
> to enter the sender information in a table or to send a reply.
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007, David Miller wrote:
> 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
> "DM" == David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> 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
DM> And this is exactly a sensible response in my opinion.
Why send the reply at al
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
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 targe
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?
Linux subscribes to the host based addressing model rather
than an interface based addressing model. Both approaches
are va
Hi,
I started to look at this code when I was working on a project of
rewriting a dhcp-client.
I wanted to make the client use arp to determine if the offered
address was free or in use.
Thats when I noticed that linux machines responded in this, for me, odd way.
The problem is not really the ta
Hello!
> Send a correct arp reply instead of one with sender ip and sender
> hardware adress in target fields.
I do not see anything more legal in setting target address to 0.
Actually, semantics of target address in ARP reply is ambiguous.
If it is a reply to some real request, it is set to ad
Fix arp reply when received arp probe with sender ip 0.
Can't find any ground in RFC2131 to send a non-valid arp-reply in
the special case of sender ip being set to 0.
- Bug fix for arp handling when sender ip is set to 0.
Send a correct arp reply instead of one with sender ip and sender
hardware
12 matches
Mail list logo
