Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!husc6!ukma!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!HYDRA.BUCKNELL.EDU!droms
From: droms@HYDRA.BUCKNELL.EDU (Ralph E. Droms)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Questions about TCP/IP protocol suite implementations
Message-ID: <9007030332.AA14712@hydra.bucknell.edu>
Date: 3 Jul 90 03:32:57 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 24


In connection with the work of the IETF Dynamic Host Confguration
working group, I'd like to conduct a small survey by asking the
following two questions:

1) Which router vendors implement BOOTP?  Which implementations would
break if the BOOTP protocol were enhanced by, say, a new set of BOOTP
operations?  Which implementations provide the forwarding function in
which broadcast BOOTP requests are retransmitted and the response(s)
returned by the router?

2) Which implementations of TCP/IP (either host or router or whatever)
would break if a new address class were introduced?  Which would break
if network address 0 were used as a special purpose address; e.g., if
network address 0 were used for packets destined for hosts on the same
subnet and packets with destination network address 0 were
specifically not forwarded by routers?

Please reply directly to me...

- Ralph Droms                 Computer Science Department
  droms@bucknell.edu          323 Dana Engineering
                              Bucknell University
  (717) 524-1145              Lewisburg, PA 17837