The IP over ATM Mailing List Archive by date

["Timothy J. Smith" <tjsmith@vnet.ibm.com>]

Hi Hiroshi,

I'll take a stab at it.  Others, please keep me honest...

> Please clarify related with ARP server issue.
> I am little confused what is the current status.
>
>
>  (1) Multi-address node, having more than one IP address with
>      one physical interface, is allowed ?
>       --> I guess this is allowed.

I believe this to be true.  Again, I use a single Ethernet
adapter assigned multiple IP addresses as my model.

>
>  (2) In multi-address node, how InARP-reply is replied.
>
>      (a) Can VC between ARP-server and client node be shared among
>          the multiple IP addresses ?

If I understand your question, the answer is yes.  However, because
an ARP Server contains LIS specific knowledge, the ARP Server would
probably be configured to serve multiple LISs, namely those LISs for
which these multiple IP addresses are members.

>          If this is Yes, multiple InARP-reply messages will be
>          returned to the ARP-server, according to a single InARP-reque ?

No, I believe that per RFC1293, only one or zero replies are to be
returned for each request.  The reply should be from an address that
sits on the same subnet.  So the ARP Server would send out one request
for each LIS that it served.  Likewise, the multi-addressed client
would do the same.  Of course, an implementation may choose to send
gratuitous InArp replies just as some send gratuitous ARPs in addition
to their compliance with the RFC.

>     (b) Each IP address uses own ATM-VCC between the client node and
>         ARP-server.
>         Is this mandatry ? (related to question (a))

I don't think this is mandatory.  Your implementation may choose to
have multiple dedicated VCs, for management or some other reason,
but at the cost of maintaining  duplicate channels.

>     (c) Each IP address has its own ATM address.  In this case,
>         multi-address node has multiple ATM addresses.
>         Is this mandatry for multi-address node ?
>         --> I think it is not mandatry.

I agree!  Anyone else?

Cheers,
TJS