Subject: Re: better ARP handling in IPv4 alias address
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Hal Snyder <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 07/03/2001 12:19:48
Luke Mewburn <email@example.com> writes:
> On Tue, Jul 03, 2001 at 05:43:07PM +0900, Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino wrote:
> > do people think it worthwhile to bring this in? basically, this
> > changes behavior of ARP logic against IPv4 alias addresses (non-first
> > address).
> > http://www.NetBSD.org/cgi-bin/query-pr-single.pl?number=13311
> I haven't had a chance to fully test this yet, but if it works as
> advertised I think it's a great idea.
> It means that we'll be able to remove the requirement to do
> route add <ipaddress> localhost
> after configuring <ipaddress> as an alias so that "ping <ipaddress>"
> actually works.
Ditto on no time to test it yet (still recovering from Usenix, what a
great time!), but I think there is a similar thing going on with
point-to-point devices, at least gif and lmc - route to local IP has
to be installed manually if you need it. Is that a bug or a feature?