Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!lll-winken!gauss.llnl.gov!casey
From: casey@gauss.llnl.gov (Casey Leedom)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: IP Multicasting in SunOS
Message-ID: <43507@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV>
Date: 8 Jan 90 00:57:50 GMT
References: <9001052140.AA01228@risci.TN.CORNELL.EDU>
Sender: usenet@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV
Reply-To: casey@gauss.llnl.gov (Casey Leedom)
Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Lines: 21


  While you're at it, you should hit up IETF to convert ARP from using
Ethernet broadcasts to using Ethernet multicasts.  The fact the ARP
scales up nicely on large networks (fundamentally because it's a lazy
evaluation algorithm) doesn't excuse it from the bad etiquette of using
the Ethernet broadcast address.  After all, why should all the non-IP
stations on an Ethernet be bothered with IP ARP packets?

  But this is just an example of the more general complaint of ``Why
Ethernet broadcasts at all?'' I have yet to hear of a legitimate need for
Ethernet broadcasts.  If the Ethernet Data Link Layer we're more
sophisticated and supported facilities that required communication beyond
mere packet delivery, then there might be a need for broadcasts.  But as
it stands now, the only Data Link Layer facility that Ethernet offers is
delivery of packets.  There are no control type messages that might need
to be delivered to all stations and therefore (as far as I can see) no
need for Ethernet broadcasts at all.

  Abolish Ethernet broadcast!

Casey