Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think!ames!amdahl!gollum!obelix!warner
From: warner@twg.com (Warner Losh)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: Ye Old Discard Protocol (WKS == 9)
Message-ID: <66@gollum.twg.com>
Date: 4 Dec 89 05:39:18 GMT
References: <8911301910.AA03187@sneezy.lanl.gov> <40114@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV> <40184@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV>
Sender: news@twg.com
Reply-To: warner@twg.com (Warner Losh)
Organization: The Wollongong Group
Lines: 21

In article <40184@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV> casey@gauss.llnl.gov (Casey Leedom) writes:
>  Perhaps we could even get this into the Host Requirements RFC as an
>addendum ... :-)

Better yet, we should make the practice a MUST NOT in the Host
Requirements RFC.  It is totally bogus and doesn't buy the company
that is doing the copy protection anything.

Don't broadcast packets cause ARP wars anyway?  At least on networks
that have older networking software?  I'd hate to see a ARP war (aka
net meltdown) that could be traced to this practice.  Denial of
service law suits can be expensive.....

Warner Losh
warner@twg.com
These are my own opinions.
-- 
-- 
Warner Losh	warner@twg.com (formerly warner@hydrovax.nmt.edu)
Is this nightmare black, or are the windows painted?
My views and spelling are my own.  Only the letters have been changed.


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com