NIST IPv6 document

Thu Jan 6 10:29:11 UTC 2011

On Jan 5, 2011, at 9:44 AM, Jeff Wheeler wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 12:26 PM, Phil Regnauld <regnauld at 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.
> 
> 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