On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 10:16:47AM +0100, Benny Amorsen wrote: > In practice most vendors ignore the "multicast" word in that sentence. > The functionality is really useful and hard to achieve in any other > way. > > RFC 1812 should be amended.
I disagree. It doesn't make any sense to accept a multicast address for a unicast neighbor resolution protocol - especially since I could use that as a denial-of-service vector by maliciously answering ARP queries and forcing others to multicast. Microsoft's old NLB implementations used to answer ARP with the multicast MAC address for the cluster. We had Cisco gear that refused to learn it. That makes Cisco and Juniper that don't learn them - who works that way? Nokia should generate a virtual MAC if they want a MAC that can float past device failover. That's how VRRP, HSRP and NSRP work and it's great. -- Ross Vandegrift [email protected] "If the fight gets hot, the songs get hotter. If the going gets tough, the songs get tougher." --Woody Guthrie _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
