[Top] [All Lists]

Re: neighbour cache vs. invalid addresses

To: Werner Almesberger <almesber@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: neighbour cache vs. invalid addresses
From: "James R. Leu" <jleu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2000 20:59:18 -0500
Cc: netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <200004300049.CAA10668@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; from Werner Almesberger on Sun, Apr 30, 2000 at 02:49:25AM +0200
Organization: none
References: <20000429184140.C5572@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <200004300049.CAA10668@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: jleu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sender: owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Sun, Apr 30, 2000 at 02:49:25AM +0200, Werner Almesberger wrote:
> James R. Leu wrote:
> > I was actually thinking of the way Cisco handles broadcast and multicast
> > over static point-to-point or point-to-multipoint ATM sub interfaces.
> That's PVCs, right ? With PVCs, it's simpler than with SVCs, because all
> hosts on the same LIS know must each other. With SVCs, only the ATMARP
> server knows that it knows everybody.

So why doesn't ATM for Linux support this then (or does it and I'm just

> > So does this mean there isn't any talk of adding this support?
> Multi-/broadcast for CLIP ? Very rarely. Seems that most people are
> using LANE for this. Multicast signaling for native ATM comes up a
> little more frequently, maybe every 1-3 months, but never really gets
> to the point where something useful emerges.

All I want to do is have one PVC between two boxes, and send packets addressed
to the multicast all routers address.  From what I can see in the neighbor
processing code this isn't supported.

> - Werner
> -- 
>   _________________________________________________________________________
>  / Werner Almesberger, ICA, EPFL, CH       werner.almesberger@xxxxxxxxxxx /
> /_IN_N_032__Tel_+41_21_693_6621__Fax_+41_21_693_6610_____________________/

James R. Leu

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