[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [2.4 PATCH] bugfix: ARP respond on all devices

To: Stephan von Krawczynski <skraw@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [2.4 PATCH] bugfix: ARP respond on all devices
From: Roman Pletka <rap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 18:47:45 +0200
Cc: bloemsaa@xxxxxxxxx, davem@xxxxxxxxxx, alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, willy@xxxxxxxxx, richard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, carlosev@xxxxxxxxxxxx, lamont@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, davidsen@xxxxxxx, marcelo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-net@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, layes@xxxxxxxxx, torvalds@xxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
References: <> <20030819145403.GA3407@alpha.home.local> <> <> <> <> <>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020903
Stephan von Krawczynski wrote:
>On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 16:43:42 +0200
>Roman Pletka <rap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>Please read carefully what you have quoted:
>>It says: *An* implementation... and then goes on with a citation of RFC 826.
>>A simple citation does not make a valid standard yet. It just refers to it
>>as an example for this specific issue. That's all.
>Sorry, but my reading is this "An implementation of the ( Address Resolution
>Protocol (ARP) [LINK:2] ) ..."
>Do you understand what I mean?
>If you insist on RFC-826 being only one of several (possible) ARP
>implementations, can you then please name an RFC where ARP as a protocol is
>clearly defined? I mean there must be one, or not?

This is not the point. As has already been mentioned some days ago by davem
RFC 826 explicitely states at the beginning that it is not the specification
of an Internet Standard and thats what I meant.

So let's stop spinning round on this.

-- Roman

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>