Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!tcp-ip
From: tcp-ip@ucbvax.ARPA
Newsgroups: fa.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: tftp for bootstrap
Message-ID: <9031@ucbvax.ARPA>
Date: Fri, 12-Jul-85 23:05:13 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.9031
Posted: Fri Jul 12 23:05:13 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 13-Jul-85 16:52:28 EDT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.ARPA
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
Lines: 19

From: David C. Plummer in disguise 

    Date: 10 Jul 1985 1008-PDT (Wednesday)
    From: Bill Croft 

    >Why 255.255.255.255.  Shouldn't this be "CLIENT'S IP ADDR"?
    >
    In the first phase, since the client DOESNT KNOW his IP address yet,
    if the server sent the reply to the client's (new) IP address, the
    server's ARP module would be unable to discover the client's hardware
    address.  That is why the server must broadcast this bootreply
    packet. 
Nope.  Recall that the user end already told the server end what the
Ethernet address is (otherwise how could the server backtranslate that
into an IP address?).  Therefore, it /should/ be a trivial matter to add
this into the ARP tables so it goes direct to the user end.

Anyway, a better argument against my proposal is that it requires the
user and server to be on the same cable.