[1052] in linux-net channel archive
Re: ProxyArp parameterized on interface?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Werner Almesberger)
Tue Sep 5 21:11:30 1995
From: Werner Almesberger <almesber@lrc.epfl.ch>
To: linux-net@vger.rutgers.edu
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 1995 08:07:44 +0200 (MET DST)
In-Reply-To: <199509040605.AA27386@frej.teknikum.uu.se> from "Ove Ewerlid" at Sep 4, 95 08:05:51 am
Ove Ewerlid wrote:
> Has anyone ever heard of proxyarp that is interface specific.
Actually, I never quite understood why ARP actually doesn't use a
separate table for each interface in the first place, apart from
historical reasons (i.e. BSD).
There shouldn't be many cases where the same ARP entry would appear in
more than one table and it's probably always undesirable to use an ARP
entry obtained at interface A on interface B.
Except for proxy ARP and related hacks, it should actually be possible
to use the existing tools/APIs without changes, because the interface
could be determined from the IP address. (We don't allow interfaces
with !((A.local_addr ^ B.local_addr) & A.netmask & B.netmask) &&
(A.netmask & B.netmask) != ~0 (network parts of non-p2p interfaces
overlap), right ?)
Structuring ARP by interface would also allow for better integration
of non-Ethernet interfaces with their "private" ARP (like IP over
ATM). It would complicate ARP caching, though.
- Werner
--
_________________________________________________________________________
/ Werner Almesberger, DI-LRC,EPFL,CH werner.almesberger@lrc.di.epfl.ch /
/_IN_R_311__Tel_+41_21_693_6621__Fax_+41_21_693_6610_____________________/
