Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2001 11:05:42 +0200 From: Ruslan Ermilov <ru@FreeBSD.ORG> To: Bill Fenner <fenner@research.att.com> Cc: cjclark@alum.mit.edu, net@FreeBSD.ORG, security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: NOARP - gateway must answer and have frozen ARP table Message-ID: <20011207110542.J13705@sunbay.com> In-Reply-To: <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> <200112062059.MAA02282@windsor.research.att.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Dec 06, 2001 at 12:59:39PM -0800, Bill Fenner wrote: > > 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 =) > Heh, but only a few months ago IFF_NOARP started to DTRT. > 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. > What you propose is even more "flexible". :-) What's the purpose to send arp requests (!IFF_NOSENDARP) if we're not going to listen the replies (IFF_NOREPLYARP)? Also, ifnet.if_flags is declared "short" and is already fully allocated. Changing it to u_int64_t would mean introducing binary incompatibility, and what's worse, API changes, since ifreq.ifr_flags is also "short". OK, I have a proposal that should fit both opinions. I'll keep the net.link.ether.inet.static_arp to mean what it means now (keep ARP table static, no updates except from local process through a routing socket writes), and will add another sysctl that will switch the meaning of IFF_NOARP from "no arp" to "static arp on this interface". How about this? Cheers, -- Ruslan Ermilov Oracle Developer/DBA, ru@sunbay.com Sunbay Software AG, ru@FreeBSD.org FreeBSD committer, +380.652.512.251 Simferopol, Ukraine http://www.FreeBSD.org The Power To Serve http://www.oracle.com Enabling The Information Age 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?20011207110542.J13705>