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 disguiseDate: 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.