Re: LL32 Multihoming

> From: "Robert Elz" <[email protected]>
>
>   | The use of "any" implies that two interfaces on the same host and
connected
>   | to the same link would not recognise each others ARPs as conflicts.
This is
>   | not independence.
>
> No, but nor does anything claim that the interfaces are independent.
>
> What it says is to run the algorithm independently on each interface.
> That is: the order in which the two happen (including in parallel)
> should be irrelevant, and the results of running the algorithm on the two
> should in no way depend upon each other.   That's all it means.

My issue is this:

If I see a claim for an IP address I already have, then I should recognise
it as a conflict if and only if the claim appears on the interface to which
I have assigned that address.

The fact that the hardware address for a conflicting claim matches one of my
other interfaces is spurious. It does however tell me that that other
interface is connected to the same link and allows me to resolve the
conflict internally if I wish (I could also avoid the conflict internally
before it ever occurs) but this is an implementation issue which need not
appear in the document.

On the other hand, if the interfaces happen to be on different links then
seeing a claim for an address I already have on another interface, should
not be seen as a conflict - once again irrespective of hardware address.