Reverse or inverse ARP from windows/linux - no way (!?!?)
in [Embedded]
|
Prev: USB 3.0 implementation on FPGA
Next: Call for papers (Deadline Extended): HPCS-10, USA, July 2010
From: David Schwartz on 30 Mar 2010 21:27 On Mar 29, 3:44 pm, Hans-Bernhard Bröker <HBBroe...(a)t-online.de> wrote: > I believe that, strictly speaking, that can't happen. If you have no > internet at the moment, you don't have DHCP either. Remember that DHCP > itself is a UDP service. UDP in turn works on top of IP, and that, for > better or for worse, is "internet". Many networks that have nothing whatsoever to do with the Internet have adopted its protocol. You can't have the Internet without IP, but you can certainly have IP with the Internet. DS
From: markp on 31 Mar 2010 05:43 "David Schwartz" <davids(a)webmaster.com> wrote in message news:8a306499-3f14-43cd-9999-a0349dce0ad8(a)u22g2000yqf.googlegroups.com... On Mar 29, 3:44 pm, Hans-Bernhard Br�ker <HBBroe...(a)t-online.de> wrote: >> I believe that, strictly speaking, that can't happen. If you have no >> internet at the moment, you don't have DHCP either. Remember that DHCP >> itself is a UDP service. UDP in turn works on top of IP, and that, for >> better or for worse, is "internet". >Many networks that have nothing whatsoever to do with the Internet >have adopted its protocol. You can't have the Internet without IP, but >you can certainly have IP with the Internet. For this thread to make any sense you should be able to define exactly what an 'Internet' is. Off you go... Mark.
From: Paul Hovnanian P.E. on 31 Mar 2010 13:30 Barry Margolin wrote: > In article <4BAC2BE3.FAC92EF2(a)Hovnanian.com>, > "Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul(a)Hovnanian.com> wrote: > >> Didi wrote: >> > >> > I tried today to figure out a simple way to give users of our >> > new netmca ( http://tgi-sci.com/tgi/nmcatb.htm ) to locate its >> > IP address once it gets one via dhcp when there is no internet >> > at the moment (when there is the device posts its IP to our domain >> > and customers can see it using a browser). >> > >> > >> Here's an idea: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_DNS >> >> That will solve the dynamic (DHCP assigned) IP address to a DNS entry >> that the world can resolve. > > Isn't that what he's referring to in the parentheses? He's trying to > find a way to do it when there's no DNS server to update. > I skipped over that part. When he mentioned his 'customers', I was thinking of people outside of his LAN (on the Internet), which would assume the operation of the entire name service infrastructure. On LANs, the easiest protocol to implement (for discovery of peers) would be NMBD. That's a part of the Samba s/w suite (http://www.samba.org/). That's not a solution for WAN access, but it works within small networks. -- Paul Hovnanian paul(a)hovnanian.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Have gnu, will travel.
From: JosephKK on 31 Mar 2010 23:50 On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 10:55:48 -0400, Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn(a)garlic.com> wrote: > >"JosephKK"<quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> writes: >> First off the TCP/IP stack is 4 levels, and the ISO model is 7 layers. >> Thus there is intrinsic mismatch. Much of the TCP/IP model tools span >> two or more layers in the ISO model. The real deal for TCP/IP protocol >> definitions comes from the IETF RFC library. >> >> http://www.ietf.org/rfc.html >> >> Please note that this RFC information is freely available for any use. > >note quite true anymore ... the copyright notice use to say that author >gives unlimited rights including any derivative works as long as the >IETF copyright notice was included. A couple years ago, that was changed >... and now it ways that RFC authors may retain rights (so RFCs >published since the change are subject to the new copyright rules). > >look at RFCs related to IETF Trust ... for instance 5377 > >5377 I Advice to the Trustees of the IETF Trust on Rights to Be Granted >in IETF Documents, Halpern J., 2008/11/10 (8pp) (.txt=17843) (See Also >5378) (Refs 3935, 4071, 4371) (Ref'ed By 5744, 5745) > >current documents carry the following > >This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal >Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/ >license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. >Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights >and restrictions with respect to this document > >... i got hit with it and had to hire a copyright lawyer out of my own >pocket (situation where an attempt was made to try and apply the new >rules to RFCs published under the old rules) ... and suggested that they >needed to make it much more clear to the authors about copyright >changes. Thanks for the update, i hadn't realized that the publishers sickness had gotten to IETF. Damn publishers, insisting on hanging on to a technologically obsolete business model from the dark ages.
From: JosephKK on 31 Mar 2010 23:55
On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 18:00:15 +0000 (UTC), Rick Jones <rick.jones2(a)hp.com> wrote: >In comp.protocols.tcp-ip JosephKK <quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> First off the TCP/IP stack is 4 levels, and the ISO model is 7 >> layers. Thus there is intrinsic mismatch. Much of the TCP/IP model >> tools span two or more layers in the ISO model. The real deal for >> TCP/IP protocol definitions comes from the IETF RFC library. > >The ISO and the IETF are both wrong. There are nine layers :) > >https://www.isc.org/files/9layer.thumb.png > >rick jones Not at all, both of those are applied liberally to all levels of any stack currently; they actually enclose the whole stack. Worse they are trying to get in between the existing layers/levels. |