Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 24 Sep 2004 15:50:14 -0000
From:      Bill Fenner <fenner@research.att.com>
To:        dwbear75@gmail.com
Cc:        net@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: NOARP - gateway must answer and have frozen ARP table
Message-ID:  <200112062059.MAA02282@windsor.research.att.com>
References:  <20011205124430.A83642@svzserv.kemerovo.su> <20011205040316.H40864@blossom.cjclark.org> <20011205231735.A1361@grosbein.pp.ru> <20011205193859.B79705@sunbay.com> <200112051835.fB5IZqH95521@whizzo.transsys.com> <20011205204526.B89520@sunbay.com> <200112051852.fB5IqmH95809@whizzo.transsys.com> <20011205121928.A3061@blossom.cjclark.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help

Garrett and I discussed what IFF_NOARP should mean about 4-5 years
ago; we decided that it probably menat "no ARP".  We discussed
the idea of seperating it out into two flags; "Don't reply to ARP"
and "don't pay attention to ARP" but decided to wait and see what
people thought.  4-5 years is probably enough time to wait =)

My proposal: keep IFF_NOARP, but add IFF_NOSENDARP and IFF_NOREPLYARP
(or something, I'm no good at making up names).  I agree with Louie
that it makes sense for these to be per-interface as opposed to
Ruslan's sysctl.

  Bill

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200112062059.MAA02282>