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.