From owner-freebsd-net Mon Feb 5 14: 3:18 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from wyattearp.stanford.edu (wyattearp.Stanford.EDU [171.64.180.171]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 949ED37B401; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 14:03:00 -0800 (PST) Received: (from richw@localhost) by wyattearp.stanford.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA64838; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 14:02:53 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from richw) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 14:02:53 -0800 (PST) From: Rich Wales X-Sender: richw@wyattearp.stanford.edu To: Luigi Rizzo Cc: Julian Elischer , patrick@netzuno.com, freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG, julian@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: BRIDGE breaks ARP? (more info) In-Reply-To: <200102052153.f15LrCH25651@iguana.aciri.org> Message-ID: <20010205215641.59637.richw@wyattearp.stanford.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Luigi Rizzo wrote: > it looks like it essentially reverts to the old (1.75) behaviour, > . . . when bridging is compiled in (and now, when bridging is > enabled), arp requests do not consider the interface from which > the request came from. . . . there are some cases where you are > doing bridging separately on clusters of interfaces, . . . In my case, I want to maintain two distinct clusters on my bridge -- one cluster with publicly accessible IP addresses (part of the Internet at large), and another cluster with private IP addresses (for a local network that is allowed to access the Internet only through proxies). If I implement Julian's mod in my bridge, am I going to run into problems with misdirected ARP packets? Or should I be safe because my two clusters are dealing with completely separate groups of IP addresses (one external, the other internal)? Rich Wales richw@webcom.com http://www.webcom.com/richw/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message