Re: Subnet Proxy ARP: Let me count the ways.

Zygo Blaxell (uixjjji1@umail.furryterror.org)
2 Feb 1999 11:14:42 -0500


In article <Pine.LNX.3.96.990202013435.21167H-100000@calvin.captech.com>,
George Bonser <grep@oriole.sbay.org> wrote:
>Proxy ARP of subnets is also very handy when it comes to a remote VPN
>though an tunnel device. If there is a remote subnet, proxy arp makes it
>appear nicely on the local net. If subnet Proxy arp has been removed, it
>makes it more difficult for some VPN applications I have installed with
>2.0.x to upgrade to 2.2 ... would have to proxy each IP address
>individually.

It's also handy when there are redundant routers attached to each ethernet
segment. You get load balancing by having the routers compete for leaf-nodes
using subnet proxy ARP replies, and if a router dies, it stops responding
to proxy ARP requests and simply disappears from the routing picture. It's
much easier to configure and maintain than a whole lot of routing daemons on
each and every single client.

A certain large corporation I used to work for used _nothing_ but proxy
ARP on its internal networks for routing (with a real routing protocol
between the routers themselves). "Large" means ~800 machines per subnet.

-- 
Zygo Blaxell, Linux Engineer, Corel Corporation, zygob@corel.ca (work),
zblaxell@furryterror.org (play).  It's my opinion, I tell you! Mine! All MINE!
Size of 'diff -Nurw -x CVS -x win_include -x configure winehq corel' as of
Tue Feb 2 10:14:19 EST 1999: 7069 line(s)

- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/