Heres Cisco's definition.
http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/105/5.html
Brian "Sonic" Whalen
Success = Preparation + Opportunity
On Wed, 23 May 2001, Chuck Larrieu wrote:
> At the risk of becoming another Bob Vance..
>
> I'm reading Doug Comer's TCP/IP reference, on the assumption that it c
On Wed, 23 May 2001, Chuck Larrieu wrote:
> So in other words, proxy arp may be viewed as something of an obsolete
> protocol / operation in that most modern TCP stacks contain the mechanisms
> for doing the network XOR determination, and then using the default
gateway.
> A modern stack would rec
Child"
To:
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2001 3:58 AM
Subject: Re: ARP versus Proxy-arp [7:5664]
> On Wed, 23 May 2001, Chuck Larrieu wrote:
>
> > So in other words, proxy arp may be viewed as something of an obsolete
> > protocol / operation in that most modern TCP stacks contain
Proxy arp isn't dead, it is still in use very frequently on dial-up links.
If you get a chance, dial-up to earthlink and run winipcfg. You'll see that
your default gateway is actually set to yourself. Their is a reasonable
explanation of this behavior in the Sybex CCNP switch 2.0 chapter on
redu
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: ARP versus Proxy-arp [7:5664]
Proxy arp isn't dead, it is still in use very frequently on dial-up links.
If you get a chance, dial-up to earthlink and run winipcfg. You'll see that
your default gateway is actually set to yourself. Their is a
#6172
- Original Message -
From: Hire, Ejay
To:
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2001 7:31 AM
Subject: RE: ARP versus Proxy-arp [7:5664]
> Proxy arp isn't dead, it is still in use very frequently on dial-up links.
> If you get a chance, dial-up to earthlink and run winipcfg. You&#x
At 10:36 PM 5/23/01, Chuck Larrieu wrote:
>At the risk of becoming another Bob Vance..
>
>I'm reading Doug Comer's TCP/IP reference, on the assumption that it can't
>hurt to really get into how TCP/IP works.
>
>Proxy-arp versus normal arp.
>
>A host does not know the physical address of anoth
ity to a client with any configured ip address and
>gateway.
>
>Dean Whitley
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Hire, Ejay [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2001 10:32 AM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: RE: ARP versus Proxy-arp [7:5664]
>
>
>Proxy
tel can provide
> >internet connectivity to a client with any
> configured ip address and
> >gateway.
> >
> >Dean Whitley
> >
> >-Original Message-
> >From: Hire, Ejay [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> >Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2001 10:32 AM
&g
ginal Message - From: Hire, Ejay To:
> Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2001 7:31 AM Subject: RE: ARP versus Proxy-arp
> [7:5664]
>
>
> > Proxy arp isn't dead, it is still in use very frequently on dial-up
> > links. If you get a chance, dial-up to earthlink and run w
Chuck,
Proxy-arp is also useful for cases where you have multiple
candidate DG's on the same segment and for whatever reason you
can't or don't want to use HSRP/VRRP, IRDP or passive RIP.
You can achieve a certain amount of load-balancing and failover
using proxy-arp by pointing a hosts DG
and it will arp for its default gateway. The
> > router with proxy arp will
> > >answer as the default gateways mac address. Then
> > using a wide scope for nat
> > >(the scope would be the entire ip address range)
> > the hotel can provide
> > >
ROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Priscilla Oppenheimer
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2001 6:24 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: ARP versus Proxy-arp [7:5664]
You missed the point. I know what Proxy ARP is.
I assume the goal is that the traveller doesn't need to do any
reconfiguration and can leave the
, GA 30097-1511
=
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2001 6:05 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: ARP versus Proxy-arp [7:5664]
Chuck,
Proxy-a
On Thu, 24 May 2001, Priscilla Oppenheimer wrote:
> At 10:36 PM 5/23/01, Chuck Larrieu wrote:
>
> >A host through it's TCP stack does the XOR and determines that a host lies
> >on another network. The host therefore sends the packet to the device
> >indicated as its default gateway in its config
>
>
>
>
>
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
>Priscilla Oppenheimer
>Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2001 6:24 PM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: RE: ARP versus Proxy-arp [7:5664]
>
>
>You missed the point. I know
different
subnets, because al hosts are on the same wire.
Chuck
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of
Priscilla Oppenheimer
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2001 12:04 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: ARP versus Proxy-arp [7:5664]
I
uluth, GA 30097-1511
>=
>
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
>Priscilla Oppenheimer
>Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2001 6:24 PM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sub
>
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
>Priscilla Oppenheimer
>Sent: Friday, May 25, 2001 3:04 PM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: RE: ARP versus Proxy-arp [7:5664]
>
>
>If a router running Proxy ARP didn't h
lf Of
>Priscilla Oppenheimer
>Sent: Friday, May 25, 2001 3:04 PM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: RE: ARP versus Proxy-arp [7:5664]
>
>
>If a router running Proxy ARP didn't have a "route of last resort" or
>"default route" would it still respond to an AR
to cover all possibilities. Score one for the
designer! Good call.
Chuck
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of
Priscilla Oppenheimer
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2001 3:24 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: ARP versus Proxy-arp [7
>Chuck
>
>
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of
>Priscilla Oppenheimer
>Sent: Friday, May 25, 2001 3:24 PM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject:RE: ARP versus Proxy-arp [7:5664]
>
>At 05:05 PM 5/25/01,
rk. In the case you, PO, mention, the router interface would have to
> have secondary addressing to cover all possibilities. Score one for the
> designer! Good call.
>
> Chuck
>
>
> -Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of
> Pr
It would be terrific if PCs could join a network without tinkering with the
TCP/IP control panel. It would be similar to the AppleTalk design of 1984!
;-) Anyway, I think I've proven my point that the hotel network will
require quite a bit of ingenious design beyond just depending on Proxy ARP.
11455 Lakefield Dr.
> Fax 770-623-3429 Duluth, GA 30097-1511
> =
>
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, Ma
- Original Message -
From: "Priscilla Oppenheimer"
>
> I also tried the original case, once I was sure Proxy ARP was really
> enabled. I left my PC on its normal office config on network 208.x.x.x,
but
> connected to the lab network. The router complained about the source being
> on a
26 matches
Mail list logo
