On 4/6/06, David Daney <[email protected]> wrote:
> Janos Farkas wrote:
> > Shouldn't it
> > be more correct to not depend on the ip address of the used network,
> > but to use the "scope" parameter of the given address?
> RFC 3927 specifies the Ethernet arp broadcast behavior for only
> 169.254.0.0/16. Presumably you could set the scope parameter to local
> for addresses outside of that range or even for protocols other than
> Ethernet. Since broadcasting ARP packets usually adversely effects
> usable network bandwidth, we should probably only do it where it is
> absolutely required. The overhead of testing the value required by the
> RFC is quite low (3 machine instructions on i686 is the size of the
> entire patch), so using some proxy like the scope parameter would not
> even be a performance win.
Indeed, I just have a bad feeling about hardwiring IP addresses this deep.
The problems with "my" idea would be, summarily, after a day:
Q: Is there are reason to use broadcast ARP semantics for other IP
address ranges?
A: Maybe, but no RFC defines that.
Q: Is there are reason to NOT use broadcast ARP semantics for the
defined IP address ranges?
A: Maybe, but the RFC is against it.
Q: Is there a reason to expect people (and tools) to use/define scopes?
A: Probably, but it's still uncommon practice :) I mean, how many of
us have 192.168.x.x addresses with "global" scope? I know I do.
I'm still in a losing position :)
Janos
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
