Subject: Re: [2.4 PATCH] bugfix: ARP respond on all devices

From: Stephan von Krawczynski <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 16:15:12 +0200

On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 10:49:46 +0200
Roman Pletka <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Bas Bloemsaat wrote:
> >>Indeed, would people stop quoting from RFC 985 and
> >>RFC 826.
> > 
> > 
> > RFC 826 is referenced from 1009 as describing ARP. So in effect it does
> > define a standard.
> 
> RFC 1009 is obsolete too (by 1812 for the sake of completeness).
> Please stop quoting obsolete RFC's.
> 
> -- Roman

One of the big advantages of RFCs is that everybody can read them. In fact if
one names a special RFC for proving something he said, he should at least have
read it once:

<quote RFC 1812>
3.3.2 Address Resolution Protocol - ARP

   Routers that implement ARP MUST be compliant and SHOULD be
   unconditionally compliant with the requirements in [INTRO:2].

...

   INTRO:2.
        Internet Engineering Task Force (R. Braden, Editor),
        "Requirements for Internet Hosts - Communication Layers", STD 3,
        RFC 1122, USC/Information Sciences Institute, October 1989.

</quote>

=>

<qoute RFC 1122>
      2.3.2  Address Resolution Protocol -- ARP

         2.3.2.1  ARP Cache Validation

            An implementation of the Address Resolution Protocol (ARP)
            [LINK:2] MUST provide a mechanism to flush out-of-date cache
            entries.  If this mechanism involves a timeout, it SHOULD be
            possible to configure the timeout value.

...

[LINK:2] "An Ethernet Address Resolution Protocol," D. Plummer, RFC-826,
     November 1982.

</quote>

=>

RFC-826 is _valid_

Why do you think it is not valid, Roman? Where do you read that?

Regards,
Stephan