[Top] [All Lists]

Re: neighbour cache vs. invalid addresses

To: jleu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: neighbour cache vs. invalid addresses
From: Werner Almesberger <almesber@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2000 00:30:35 +0200 (MET DST)
Cc: netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20000429145725.A5529@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> from "James R. Leu" at Apr 29, 2000 02:57:25 PM
Sender: owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
James R. Leu wrote:
> Broadcast and multicast do have defined meanings on CLIP interfaces,
> mapping this meaning to the neigh_table is where the problem comes in.

RFC1577 and (RFC2225 update of 1577) have little encouragement for
multicast (section 8 or 10) and make a rather fuzzy statement about
broadcast (section 7 or 9).

You probably mean MARS, RFC2022. That's a different story.

> I know the reason I want multicast on CLIP (or another ATM interface type)
> is because of an application I maintain that use it for neighbor discovery.

With CLIP, only unicast can yield predictable results. I'm not sure
if MARS is widely implemented or deployed. (Linux doesn't have it.)
If you really require broadcast media like semantics on an ATM network,
you're probably better off with LANE, which emulates a broadcast layer

> Werner, is there a discussion on the ATM list about how multicast and
> broadcast will (could) work on ATM?

It's more on how to make it fail gracefully :-)

- Werner

 / Werner Almesberger, ICA, EPFL, CH       werner.almesberger@xxxxxxxxxxx /

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