Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!husc6!mit-eddie!ll-xn!ames!sdcsvax!ucbvax!BRADEN.ISI.EDU!braden From: braden@BRADEN.ISI.EDU (Bob Braden) Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip Subject: Re: Ethernet meltdowns Message-ID: <8707172027.AA06335@braden.isi.edu> Date: Fri, 17-Jul-87 16:27:36 EDT Article-I.D.: braden.8707172027.AA06335 Posted: Fri Jul 17 16:27:36 1987 Date-Received: Sat, 18-Jul-87 17:12:00 EDT Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Distribution: world Organization: The ARPA Internet Lines: 22 Phil, Your interpretation of the IP broadcast address situation is at variance from the "official" interpretation in RFC-1009. The issue is one on which reasonable and informed Internetters can and have disagreed, on this mailing list and elsewhere, and there probably is not a "right" answer. However, we did make a decision, and gave the Internet community plenty of chance to read and comment on RFC-1009 before it was published. As a matter of fact, the IP broadcast address was not an issue on which anybody made a comment (and there WERE plenty of comments and commenters on the RFC-985+ draft!). I suspect that you will now go read RFC-1009, and be suitably outraged. All outraged messages to Jon Postel or myself on the contents of RFC-1009 will be read, considered carefully, and if the arguments are irrefutable, will influence a future revision to the RFC. Bob Braden PS I think you make a mistake by dismissing the IP multicasting mechanism. A 4.3BSD implementation is available today for anyone who wants it.