From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon Sep 19 06:57:53 2005
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG>
X-Original-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C93AF16A41F
	for <freebsd-net@freebsd.org>; Mon, 19 Sep 2005 06:57:53 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from peter@dataloss.nl)
Received: from useful.dataloss.nl (useful.dataloss.nl [80.84.249.161])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 4C6FD43D49
	for <freebsd-net@freebsd.org>; Mon, 19 Sep 2005 06:57:53 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from peter@dataloss.nl)
Received: (qmail 38495 invoked by uid 1001); 19 Sep 2005 06:57:52 -0000
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 08:57:52 +0200
From: Peter van Dijk <peter@dataloss.nl>
To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
Message-ID: <20050919065752.GD17888@dataloss.nl>
References: <20050919.004531.92589257.mshindo@mshindo.net>
	<432D9249.9090202@mac.com> <432DA0AC.8010802@thedarkside.nl>
	<432E23A2.8000801@in-addr.com> <20050919064927.GB17888@dataloss.nl>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20050919064927.GB17888@dataloss.nl>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i
Subject: Re: ARP behavior in FreeBSD vs Linux
X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD <freebsd-net.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net>,
	<mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-net>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-net@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net>,
	<mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 06:57:53 -0000

On Mon, Sep 19, 2005 at 08:49:28AM +0200, Peter van Dijk wrote:
> On FreeBSD, we solve this issue by assigning the IPs to lo0. For
> Linux, this approach works equally well and is what the Linux Virtual
> Server documentation recommends.

Oops.. the docs I read were for Linux 2.0. The docs for 2.2 recommend
flipping some 'hidden' flag in /proc/sys/net/ipv4; this suggests that
Linux responds to ARP even for lo0 by default.

So indeed, Linux requires -extra- care to get a DR loadbalanced
situation right..

Cheers, Peter
-- 
peter@dataloss.nl        | ~ tonight tonight, what is this potion
http://blog.dataloss.nl/ | ~ that makes a fool of me
UnderNet/#clue           |     Wayfinder, fr-025 soundtrack