Subject: InARP proposal

From: [email-masked] (Ezio Valdevit)
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1998 09:21:49 -0800

Hi,

I think InARP is a neat idea, but I strongly agree with Jon and others
than adding it to the current RFC would create more problems than it
solves.

In my opinion there are too many ways to do IP over FC already (six, if I
remember correctly), and I am concerned about the current state of affairs
as far as interoperability goes.  If we add one more, it is definitely going to delay the whole process, especially because we need to produce interoperable
implementations before the standard is accepted.

Making it mandatory for *all* IP compliant devices is also not advisable,
in my mind.  It is not even mandatory for Frame Relay devices, where it is
used the most.  Quoting from RFC 2390: "If the station is unable or unwilling
to reply, it ignores the request".

InARP solves a different problem from what we are trying to solve in the
current RFC.  It discovers the IP address of a device whose HW address is
known, as opposed to ARP and FARP, that discover the HW address of a
device whose IP address is known.  I believe that the IpARP behavior would be
useful for applications like the Name Server, that has no way right now to find
devices' IP addresses.

I am very interested in the InARP idea, and I propose that it be the subject
of a separate RFC.

Regards,

--Ezio

******************************************************************************
Ezio Valdevit					TEL:	(408) 487-8110
Brocade Communications Systems			FAX:	(408) 487-8101
1901 Guadalupe Pkwy.  				Email:	[email-masked]
San Jose, CA 95131
******************************************************************************

---

From: "Lee Hu" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 04 Dec 1998 10:49:12 -0800

Hi, all:

I agree with Jon and Ezio.  While InARP is a good idea for further discussion, it's kinda too rush for this rfc, particularly with the issues of availability in
other environments, optional vs mandatory, and inter-operability concern.

But I appreciate it being brought up and the discussion.

Lee