[rbridge] ARP proxying

[Gray, Eric]

Joe,

	Are you sure that you're not deliberately trying to make
things more difficult to understand?

	Caching - in general - is well understood.  The form of
storing ARP entries in passing - in order to reduce ARP traffic
across the RBridge campus - that I have seen described on this
list so far, is directly analogous to any number of different
"Caching" uses.

	The fact that RFC 925 describes using a cache or ARP 
entries as a basis for what RFC 1009 subsequently defines as
ARP caching (or "the ARP hack"), in no way implies that this 
is what anyone would generally refer to as ARP caching.  In
fact, one use for the cache defined in RFC 925 is the MAC DA
"translation" that occurs in traversing an Internet Gateway
(router).

	While it is clearly too late to change the prior usage,
the function described in RFC 1009 would be better termed an
"ARP Translation" than an "ARP Proxy".

	I think many of us are convinced that "ARP Proxy" can't
be used because of earlier (historical) reasons (whether we
regard those as in error or not).  I do not think the term
"ARP Replay" is sufficiently descriptive and I believe that
the suggestion is made pejoratively - in what certainly looks
like an attempt to prejudice the working group against any
such discussion.

	Therefore, I again suggest using the term ARP Caching.

	I don't really care that hosts do it.  I don't care that
Disk Drive controllers do it.  I don't care that Web sites do
it.  I just want us to settle on a term that is consistent with
what is described and is not chosen to add unwanted freight.

--
Eric

--- [SNIP] ---

--> Gray, Eric wrote:
--> > Radia/Joe,
--> > 
--> > 	We can call it ARP caching (which would make some sense
--> > - possibly more than ARP replay), 
--> 
--> ARP caching is what hosts and proxy ARP-ing routers already do (ala
--> RFC1122). See TCP/IP Illustrated, Vol 1, section 4.3.
--> 

--- [SNIP] ---