On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 05:55:55 -0700
"David S. Miller" [off-list ref] wrote:

On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 14:53:16 +0200
Stephan von Krawczynski [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

_And_ you did not explain so far why these implementations should
not be RFC-conform or else illegal.

Both responding and not responding on all interfaces for ARPs
is RFC conformant.  This means both Linux and other systems
are within the rules.

Under Linux, by default, IP addresses are owned by the system
not by interfaces.  This increases the likelyhood of successful
communication on a subnet.

In other words: it is more tolerant against broken setups.
 

For scenerios where this doesn't work, we have ways to make the
kernel behave the way you want it to.

For sure.
 

There is no discussion about changing the default, because that
might break things for some people.  So this discussion is pretty
useless.

Ah yes. Maybe we are getting to the real point of the discussion. If I remember
that right kernels 2.0 and 2.2 behave differently, so you are talking about
setups for 2.4 kernels. I am very interested to hear what a valid setup looks
like that is broken by the default behaviour of _other_ RFC-conformant
implementations. That is exactly what you are telling us here.
If you cannot describe such a setup, then you basically say you don't want to
follow the mainstream because you want to keep broken setups going.
I have heard things like that before from some well-known big company...
Can't you simply state the true reason why you are playing shepherd for a dead
cow?

Regards,
Stephan