Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!mcnc!decvax!decwrl!sun!pitstop!sundc!seismo!uunet!mcvax!enea!ttds!draken!ragge
From: ragge@nada.kth.se (Ragnar Sundblad)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: EtherTalk broadcast invasion
Message-ID: <282@draken.nada.kth.se>
Date: 29 Jan 88 22:57:44 GMT
References: <305731.880101.JBVB@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Reply-To: ragge@nada.kth.se (Ragnar Sundblad)
Organization: The Royal Inst. of Techn., Stockholm
Lines: 23

In article <305731.880101.JBVB@AI.AI.MIT.EDU> JBVB@AI.AI.MIT.EDU ("James B. VanBokkelen") writes:
>As it stands, I see it as an excelent argument for IP routers in the great
>router vs. bridge debate.  From what you say, it appears that you can't
>have more than 250 MACs using EtherTalk anywhere in your bridged Ether,

Right, you must have a more intelligent bridge. Then you can give the nets
appletalk net numbers.

>and if you have even a hundred, people will notice.  Presumably the 8-bit
>node ID is *really* built-in, even if the 20 broadcasts in less than a
>second aren't?
They save the number for use next time. But they still have to check that
the number is unique.
>Or, do they do it quickly because the defense protocol
>breaks down when two nodes try to defend the same address at the same
>time?
Ha, ha, ha...

1. The mac (II) does not auto-power-on (normally)
2. The broadcast "storm" will not be sent before the user tries to use
   the network. (by printing etc)

	/ragge@nada.kth.se