On Sun, 27 Oct 2002, Blars Blarson wrote:
> In article <[🔎] 20021027193153.GL11546@valiant.sbg.palfrader.org>
> weasel@debian.org writes:
> >Such a setup is quite possible and if you come to think about it, it's
> >not much different from having say 192.168.25.0/24 on one side and
> >0.0.0.0/0 on the other. One is a real subset of the other.
>
> >Therefore the routing table is checked in the order of longest prefix
> >first. Splitting the routes is not necessary (and would not help).
>
> Routing IS the problem. Routes with a gateway don't effect arp, so
> the 0.0.0.0/0 route isn't a problem.
>
> Arp_filter doesn't work for you because there IS a valid route to
> 10.200.118.1 on eth1.
Even if I use other networks I have the same result:
eg:
| 172.22.118.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0
| 10.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 U 0 0 0 eth1
| 0.0.0.0 10.0.0.1 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth1
arps from 172.22.118.2 for 10.2.2.20 are ansered on eth0:
09:39:54.965970 arp who-has 10.2.2.20 tell 172.22.118.2
09:39:54.966004 arp reply 10.2.2.20 is-at 0:4:76:94:57:62
yours,
peter
--
PGP signed and encrypted | .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux **
messages preferred. | : :' : The universal
| `. `' Operating System
http://www.palfrader.org/ | `- http://www.debian.org/
Attachment:
pgpLJy6hZfBte.pgp
Description: PGP signature