Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2001 12:59:39 -0800 From: Bill Fenner <fenner@research.att.com> To: cjclark@alum.mit.edu Cc: net@freebsd.org, security@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>