Re: net directed broadcasts

stev@ftp.com Thu, 29 December 1994 15:57 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa02764; 29 Dec 94 10:57 EST
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa02760; 29 Dec 94 10:57 EST
Received: from venera.isi.edu by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa08849; 29 Dec 94 10:57 EST
Received: from ftp.com by venera.isi.edu (5.65c/5.61+local-20) id <AA22864>; Thu, 29 Dec 1994 07:33:22 -0800
Received: from ftp.com by ftp.com ; Thu, 29 Dec 1994 10:33:21 -0500
Received: from mailserv-D.ftp.com by ftp.com ; Thu, 29 Dec 1994 10:33:21 -0500
Received: from stev.d-cell.ftp.com by mailserv-D.ftp.com (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA07059; Thu, 29 Dec 94 10:32:25 EST
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 94 10:32:25 EST
Message-Id: <9412291532.AA07059@mailserv-D.ftp.com>
To: fred@cisco.com
Subject: Re: net directed broadcasts
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: stev@ftp.com
Cc: rreq@isi.edu
X-Orig-Sender: stev@mailserv-d.ftp.com
Repository: mailserv-D.ftp.com, [message accepted at Thu Dec 29 10:32:12 1994]
Originating-Client: d-cell.ftp.com
Content-Length: 494

    I am, of course, aware of a few applications that use letter bombs instead
    of IP multicast. The best I can do, I think, is indicate that the use of
    network-directed broadcasts is a historical approach that some routers
    support, and that should be supplanted in time by IP multicasting.
    
    Does anyone have additional thoughts?
    
boy, fred, this does take me back. this seems like the correct course to
take. are you going to mention not allowing it by default?