Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site ucbvax.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!wivax!decvax!tektronix!ucbcad!ucbvax!sam From: sam@ucbvax.UUCP Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards Subject: Re: 4.1c Ether Addressing Problem - (nf) Message-ID: <109@ucbvax.UUCP> Date: Fri, 8-Jul-83 07:40:48 EDT Article-I.D.: ucbvax.109 Posted: Fri Jul 8 07:40:48 1983 Date-Received: Tue, 12-Jul-83 04:43:46 EDT References: <1098@zehntel.UUCP>, <1633@allegra.UUCP> Organization: U. C. Berkeley Computer Science Lines: 24 Using a static mapping was long ago shown (through practical experiences) to be infeasible. A dynamic mapping scheme is the only way to handle such problems as multi-homed hosts (suppose a host splits time between network addresses, are you going to modify your mapping files every 2-3 hours?). Jim Kulp's algorithm is strongly based on ARP, if it isn't exactly ARP (he called me a few months back and described what he was going to do, it may have changed since then.) Standards are useful things if created with foresight and not too heavily influenced by politics. ARP appears to have won substantial backing in the Internet world which may result in many government locations requiring ARP support in any network oriented product purchased. 4.2 uses Bill Croft's ARP code for 10Mb/s Ethernets and some of the people that wrote interface drivers for other hardware devices have indicated they are likely to write the necessary code needed to make their interfaces use ARP. The bottom line is that if you run 4.2 on a 10Mb/s Ethernet and want another machine to talk to it, that machine is going to have to support ARP, or you're going to have to rip apart various pieces of the system. I suspect people will find it more attractive to implement ARP. Sam Leffler (finally starting to find time for things other than 4.2)