On Jan 5, 2011, at 9:44 AM, Jeff Wheeler wrote: > On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 12:26 PM, Phil Regnauld <regna...@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
