From: "Jonas Danielsson" <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 09:30:11 +0100
> 2007/11/16, David Miller <[email protected]>:
> > From: "Jonas Danielsson" <[email protected]>
> > Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 22:40:13 +0100
> >
> > > Is there a reason that the target hardware address isn't the target
> > > hardware address?
> >
>
>
> > Because of this, in cases where a choice can be made Linux will
> > advertise what is most likely to result in successful communication.
> >
> > This is likely why we are changing that target address to the one of
> > the interface actually sending back the reply rather than the zero
> > value you used.
> >
> > In fact I think this information can be useful to the sender of
> > the DAD request.
> >
>
> There seem to be some confusion about what my patch really does. It
> does not set the hardware address to a zero value.
I knew you were talking about the IP address not the hardware
address.
> The reply from the Linux kernel in computer A, before the patch would look like:
>
> Reply:
> Opcode: reply (0x0002)
> Sender HW: 00:AA.00:AA:00:AA
> Sender IP: 192.168.0.1
> Target HW: 00:AA:00:AA:00:AA
> Target IP: 192.168.0.1
And this is exactly a sensible response in my opinion.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]