Ross Vandegrift wrote:
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.
I encountered this problem a few years ago and the resolution on Nokia
TAC site was to manually set the ARP on the Cisco switches that we were
using.
And from what I know, this behavior hasn't changed recently.
_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list [email protected]
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
