Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!ames!ncar!oddjob!uwvax!dogie!uwmcsd1!ig!agate!ucbvax!LARRY.MCRCIM.MCGILL.EDU!philipp
From: philipp@LARRY.MCRCIM.MCGILL.EDU (Philip A. Prindeville)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re:  Proxy ARP (was Re: Dumb vs. smart host routing)
Message-ID: <8805170444.AA20271@Larry.McRCIM.McGill.EDU>
Date: 17 May 88 04:44:43 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 14


	I think there are situations where you might want to set up a second,
	test IP subnet or network on an network cable which already has a
	different IP subnet or network on it, and that proxy ARP routers which
	might believe they're doing exactly the right thing would make it
	impossible to do this.
	
	So proxy ARP is unacceptable to me.

But you should be able to configure a router to not know about a
network, and therefore not answer requests about it (to `unknow'
the network, as it were).  If you can't do this, it reflects a
flaw in the implementation, not the protocol.

-Philip