On Wed, 5 Nov 1997 09:52:08 +0100, "Heiko W.Rupp" <hwr@pilhuhn.de> writes:

>> Sorry, that's completely incorrect, as I explained in my original message.
>No it is not.

Sorry, but I've re-read your message and I still think you *are*
completley incorrect.  Perhaps we're disagreeing due to a language
difference?  Or how to interpret what you wrote?


>> filters only on the Ethernet link-level addresses.  So the IP level
>> software *has* to check that the class-D addresses it receives are in

>Yes. That's what I am saying.
>
>But you must tell your card somehow to not only listen to its unicast
>address.
>
>You can do this on two ways - program it to receive some multicast
>adresses or - programm it to receive all packets. 
>The only thing I was saying is, that in the latter case, IP has to
>do much more work than in the former case, so it is imho a necessity

To quote Jason, ``Jeez''!  That's a *stupid* thing to do.  I hadn't
assumed this list was interested in stupid mistakes -- the kind made
by people who are, perhaps, just learning this stuff for the first
time.  

(Go back and re-read where I wrote about a `dumb, braindead'
implementation: to me and the original poster, that covered completely
the point Heiko says (s)e(?) is trying to make. I'd taken that as
given from then on, and thought Heiko was talking about something
else.) 
If you -- collectively, not just Heiko -- think it's worth dissecting
those kinds of mistakes on tech-net, then maybe it's time to consider
splitting this list.

Because right now, we're talking past each other; just as if we
*were*  talking different languages.