[134480] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: NIST IPv6 document
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Thu Jan 6 05:32:21 2011
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTim8cuhLnF3bzMLahOoyjk7v2Dywtmq7S8U3HF5y@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2011 02:29:11 -0800
To: Jeff Wheeler <jsw@inconcepts.biz>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Jan 5, 2011, at 9:44 AM, Jeff Wheeler wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 12:26 PM, Phil Regnauld <regnauld@nsrc.org> =
wrote:
>> Jeff Wheeler (jsw) writes:
>>> Not good, but also does not affect any other interfaces on the =
router.
>> You're assuming that all routing devices have per-interface =
ARP tables.
>=20
> No, Phil, I am assuming that the routing device has a larger ARP table
> than 250 entries. To be more correct, I am assuming that the routing
> device has a large enough ARP table that any one subnet could go from
> 0 ARP entries to 100% ARP entries without using up all the remaining
> ARP resources on the box. This is usually true. Further, routing
> devices usually have enough ARP table space that every subnet attached
> to them could be 100% full of active ARP entries without using up all
> the ARP resources. This is also often true.
But, Jeff, if the router has a bunch of /24s attached to it and you scan
them all, the problem is much larger than 250 arp entries.
I think that's what Phil was getting at.
Owen
