-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 62
ARP #1
Comments
you could be right... in which case, less work for us! I was thinking the only changes we would have to make are to prevent arp packets from leaving a zone and contaminating other zones |
The biggest issue, IMHO, with reimplementing ARP is the security risk. All someone would have to do to DoS huge portions of the network would be to create fake nodes and have them request the layer 3, as @izqui said, addresses mapped to layer 2 (MAC) of all other nodes on the mesh. |
I like your idea, it's reminiscent of how distributed hash table nodes On Thursday, August 6, 2015, zlgunn [email protected] wrote:
--From Nick (Mobile) |
Why do we need to reimplement ARP? ARPs job is to map layer 3 address (IP addresses) to layer 2 (MAC addresses).
So if we assign IP addresses at our will, then ARP could do the job for us mapping them to the link layer in the network without us having to do any work.
I'm not really sure about this, but I think this is the way it works.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: