Thank you, Kiran, for the explanation. Yes, i got the idea, so it's basically a implementation choice, like windows xp doesn't update ARP table if the request is not for it. In this way, we can avoid the trouble that the ARP table will filled up quickly in a large network, and we need search entire table every time. There are cons and pros for both ways. Am I right?
On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 11:12 PM, Kiran Bacchewar <kiran.bacche...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> So, is there a clear rule about how we should do it? > > its not about rule, its all about the effectiveness of your implementation. > Its always a better implementation, to update a ARP table, as and when the > packets come. But u dont pass it on to the IP layer,since the destination IP > address is different. > > There is always a possibility of exchanging the messages within the sub-net. > This method saves one ARP query when needed. Hope you got the idea. > > kiran. > > On 2/12/09, dogeye <chetanghu...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> I think on RFC826, it said we should drop it if it's not for us, >> but I think somewhere else mentioned we can save it in the ARP table >> for furture use, and I think current lwip is doing this. So, is there >> a clear rule about how we should do it? >> >> Thank you very much. >> >> >> Dogeye >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> lwip-users mailing list >> lwip-users@nongnu.org >> http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip-users > > > > -- > Regards, > Kirankumar K B > M: 9923009398 > _______________________________________________ > lwip-users mailing list > lwip-users@nongnu.org > http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip-users > _______________________________________________ lwip-users mailing list lwip-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip-users
