Verily I say unto thee, that p5000011 spake thusly:
> They are implementing it wrongly. From the rfc:
>
> DISCUSSION:
>
> This addition to the protocol is a workaround for old host
> implementations. Such implementations SHOULD be modified so
> that they may receive unicast BOOTREPLY messages, thus making
> use of this workaround unnecessary. In general, the use of
> this mechanism is discouraged.
>
> If vista defaults to setting the broadcast bit then they have not
> understood the purpose of the flag. Any fallback should be to set the
> broadcast bit when no IP address is received when configured for
> unicast replies. Microsoft's philosophy seems to be, lets flood
> subnets with broadcasts whenever possible (not just boot[ps]).
Yes, they've configured the discovery method backwards. Unicast should
be the default, and multicast should be the fallback. Microsoft seem to
have a fetish for flooding networks, don't they? Ref: 1500 packets just
to delete a file over SMB2:
http://twit.cachefly.net/FLOSS-014.mp3
--
K.
http://slated.org
.----
| "[Microsoft] are willing to lose money for years and years just to
| make sure that you don't make any money, either." - Bob Cringely.
| - http://blog.businessofsoftware.org/2007/07/cringely-the-un.html
`----
Fedora release 7 (Moonshine) on sky, running kernel 2.6.22.1-41.fc7
16:19:57 up 80 days, 16:14, 3 users, load average: 1.13, 1.17, 1.35
|
|
