XPost: comp.arch.embedded   
   From: m@rtij.nl.invlalid   
      
   On Tue, 01 Feb 2011 22:04:25 +0100, David Brown wrote:   
      
   >>> but just because it supports such manual ARP entries is no indication   
   >>> whatsoever that such techniques are valid and follow the RFCs.  It   
   >>> could easily be that you have found a way to trick the DPS into doing   
   >>> something useful but non-standard.  However, as I said, I don't know   
   >>> for sure that this is non-standard.   
   >>   
   >> When claiming incompatibility to an RFC you have to quote which one and   
   >> perhaps give some details. I have "tricked" it (if implementing   
   >   
   > I am /not/ claiming that it is incompatible with an RFC.  I am merely   
   > saying that I suspect it might be, and that the fact that the manual ARP   
   > method works on one particular system is no indication that it is   
   > allowed by the RFCs or that it should be implemented in other systems.   
   >   
   > I am not even saying that if it against the RFCs then it's a bad idea -   
   > just that if it is against the RFCs, then you can't expect other systems   
   > to support this method.   
   >   
   > I haven't read the relevant RFCs, or even looked up their numbers, and I   
   > am quite happy to be told that I'm wrong here.  I'm just suggesting   
   > ideas to consider.   
      
   I'm not sure RFCs forbid this behavior, but I'm darn sure the RFCs don't   
   require this behavior.   
      
   It's a well known trick for not fully implemented tcp/ip stacks to behave   
   this way. Any serious implementation does *not* behave this way.   
      
   Again, I do not know what the RFCs actually require, but I do know that   
   this 'trick' does not work on most ip stacks.   
      
   HTH,   
   M4   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)