Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 14:43:38 -0800 From: John-Mark Gurney <gurney_j@resnet.uoregon.edu> To: Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu> Cc: arch@freebsd.org, Chuck Swiger <cswiger@mac.com>, Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org>, Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: ARP request retransmitting Message-ID: <20051107224338.GE775@funkthat.com> In-Reply-To: <p06230904bf9542d696b6@[128.113.24.47]> References: <20051107140451.GU91530@cell.sick.ru> <436F7DDB.40703@mac.com> <p06230904bf9542d696b6@[128.113.24.47]>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Garance A Drosihn wrote this message on Mon, Nov 07, 2005 at 12:49 -0500:
> I think Chuck's suggestion is a very good idea. In a separate message
> in this thread, Robert noted that:
>
>
> I worry that significantly increasing the amount of broadcast
> traffic will be a problem for sites with large bridged network
> configurations. On the other hand, they already have to deal
> with things like windows network neighborhoods, various service
> discovery protocols, and so on.
>
> While that "other hand" is true, here at RPI we deal with some of
> those other-hand issues by simply turning them off. We turn off
> multi-cast by default on some of our networks, for instance. But
> there's no way we can turn off ARP, so I think more care needs to
> be taken to make sure ARP remains network-friendly.
And most places that have VERY large number of hosts in a broadcast
domain (a partially populated class b), have smart switches that cache
arp requests, and prevent the arp traffic from killing the network...
So, I'd vote for the change...
Though we might want to increase the length we keep arp entries
around...
--
John-Mark Gurney Voice: +1 415 225 5579
"All that I will do, has been done, All that I have, has not."
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20051107224338.GE775>