From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759042AbXLOBcl (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 Dec 2007 20:32:41 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752188AbXLOBcc (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 Dec 2007 20:32:32 -0500 Received: from sovereign.computergmbh.de ([85.214.69.204]:35652 "EHLO sovereign.computergmbh.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751273AbXLOBcb (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 Dec 2007 20:32:31 -0500 Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 02:32:30 +0100 (CET) From: Jan Engelhardt To: "Gosney, JeremiX" cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Peters, Gordon" , "Sy, Dely L" Subject: Re: ARP Bug? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Dec 14 2007 17:11, Gosney, JeremiX wrote: >Subject: ARP Bug? > >We've noticed the 2.6-based Linux systems in our test lab are >experiencing some "ARP flux"-like symptoms. > >The systems reply with eth0's hardware address to all ARP requests, If you have the same subnet on multiple interfaces, only the first interface will be served. Case closed? >regardless of the IP being queried. Because of this, the system will >only send and receive packets on eth0; if eth0 is brought down, the >system is unreachable even though it still has several active >connections. With eth0 unplugged, none of the other interfaces are >reachable (this is presumably a side-effect caused by the switch ARP >cache.) Failover routes are defined in the routing table, but the system >still will not send/receive packets out those interfaces. > I am not sure ARP even uses the routing table.