On 6/22/2007 5:22 PM, Andrew Lyon wrote:
Are you saying that there is something wrong with proxy arp? So far it works fine for us, we have 5 segments and approx 150 nodes.
Is there something wrong with driving a stake in to the ground with a rock verses a sledge hammer, no.
I personally see no reason to ever use proxy arp when you can bridge. I also see much finer grained control over bridging than I do of proxy arp. Not to mention that with bridging, devices see the real MAC address verses the MAC of the device doing the proxy arp.
That being said, proxy arp has been around for more decades than bridging has. I'm sure that there are situations where proxy arp is the better situation. However personally I would have to have a situation where bridging would not work and proxy arp would for me to use proxy arp over bridging. I guess some of this could be attributed to the fact that I have come in to networking with in the last 10 years and to me proxy arp is the old holdover about like NetBEUI is for some networks. (That is not to say that proxy arp has as many problems as NetBEUI does or vice versa.)
Ndas devices don't work with proxy arp, bridge would, but at the moment we are a 24/7 operation and making the necessary config changes for bridge would be disruptive.
Do you have another system that you can put in to production that would connect to both broadcast domains and have it bridge just NDAS traffic and let your existing routers do what they are doing? I can understand and appreciate the inability (technical / political / chronological) to be able to replace work on production systems. That does not mean that you can not accomplish what is needed another way.
I will probably end up doing it, but I would like to know if there is any alternative..
Will adding a system just to bridge NDAS traffic work? Grant. . . . _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list LARTC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc
