[e2e] Transparent subnets with Proxy Arp

[Eric Goldman]

Bob,

Thank you for your response and sorry for the terseness.

Broadly speaking, my initial question was "given that
MAC-based bridging is now much more prevalent than
RFC 1027-type bridging, is there an inherent deficiency
in the latter?".

The text from RFC 1127 below seems to have a specific
phenomenon in mind, but it's not clear to me what that is.
Does it mean that expiry on entry from  the cache will
cause a new ARP exchange and additional latency which
then affects TCP RTO?  Or is there something more "subtle"
than that?

Regards,

- Eric

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Braden" <braden at ISI.EDU>
To: <end2end-interest at postel.org>; <eric23 at softhome.net>
Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2001 5:46 PM
Subject: Re: [e2e] Transparent subnets with Proxy Arp


>   *>
>   *> RFC 1127 ("Perspective on host requirements"), section 4, item 2:
>   *>
>   *>     Even without proxy ARP, the management dynamics of the IP route
>   *>     cache interact in subtle ways with transport-layer dynamics;
>   *>     introducing routing via proxy ARP brings a third protocol layer
>   *>     into the problem, complicating the inter-layer dynamics still
further.
>   *>
>   *>
>   *> - Eric Goldman
>   *>
>   *>
>
> Oh, OK.  And your question was... ?
>
> Bob Braden