49e688c8
XPost: comp.arch.embedded
From: philip+usenet@paeps.cx
Didi wrote:
> On Feb 2, 1:35 am, Martijn Lievaart wrote:
>> I'm not sure RFCs forbid this behavior, but I'm darn sure the RFCs don't
>> require this behavior.
>
> You claim you know that?
I'm pretty sure Martijn has read most of the relevant ones a couple of times
(for that matter, so have I and I likewise can't imagine such a requirement,
but I haven't gone and checked specially so I may be wrong and it wouldn't be
the first time that my imagination was lacking).
>> 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.
>
> So how many not fully implemented stacks do you know which behave
> this way. Can you give us some examples.
>
>> Again, I do not know what the RFCs actually require, but I do know that
>> this 'trick' does not work on most ip stacks.
>
> It is not a trick. Just a routing policy which may be set this
> or that way. On the DPS stack it can, that is. Not on the
> ones you know, I already got that.
Adding a static entry to the ARP table is not "a routing policy" by any
stretch of the imagination. Routing has happened long before ARP takes place.
ARP resolves IP addresses to lower layer (often Ethernet) addresses. I think
not running ARP for an address which is not local (ie: no address in the same
network on any interface) is a reasonable (also in terms of performance)
decision for a network stack to make.
- Philip
--
Philip Paeps Please don't email any replies
philip@paeps.cx I follow the newsgroup.
I mean, I wouldn't pay more than a couple of quid to see me, and *I'm* me.
-- (Terry Pratchett, alt.fan.pratchett)
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
