[rbridge] ARP proxying
Radia.Perlman at sun.com
Fri Dec 16 13:04:06 PST 2005
I'm changing the subject line to make it easier, as least for me, to
find mail on specific issues.
I remember writing up alternatives for ARP/ND proxying and
sending the choices and pros and cons to the list, and I'm not sure there
was ever strong opinions voiced on any of them.
However, I am quite sure the WG did not rule
out ARP proxying.
I prefer ARP proxying, rather than treating ARP like any other L2 traffic.
We could make things a bit fancier, for instance,
a) further cutting down on
traffic by having an RBridge suppress an ARP request to a particular
it knows that another one has occurred recently (either because it
iniated it as ingress RBridge or because it forwarded the encapsulated ARP
b) getting rid of stale ARP caches faster by sometimes (we'd have to decide
under what circumstances) sending the ARP query directly to the
assumed target's link, and making the target respond.
Joe...you seem to be definitively stating that the WG has ruled out
I may have missed some of the emails on the list (it's *really* hard
to keep up with the volume of traffic). Was this debated and concluded
Or were you just misremembering? Ruling proxy out is definitely a change
the original intent, and changes such as this should not be done
Guillermo Ibáñez wrote:
>ARP Proxying by the Designated Rbridge was considered an acceptable
>Joe Touch wrote:
>>Guillermo Ibáñez wrote:
>>>>My understanding was that Rbridges would do ARP proxying and would
>>>>forward ARP requests to other Rbridges. Am I still right?.
>>Not proxying; they forward ARPs like all other L2 traffic. They don't
>>generate ARPs directed at their own L2 addresses in response to seeing
>>other ARPs (proxying).
>>rbridge mailing list
>>rbridge at postel.org
More information about the rbridge