From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Aug 23 22:08:28 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B2ED16A4DD; Wed, 23 Aug 2006 22:08:28 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from patl+freebsd@volant.org) Received: from smtp.volant.org (gate.volant.org [207.111.218.246]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E826B43D49; Wed, 23 Aug 2006 22:08:27 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from patl+freebsd@volant.org) Received: from adsl-065-081-071-131.sip.gnv.bellsouth.net ([65.81.71.131] helo=[192.168.1.121]) by smtp.volant.org with asmtp (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.34 (FreeBSD)) id 1GG0wq-000Bql-Aw; Wed, 23 Aug 2006 15:11:49 -0700 Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 15:07:32 -0400 From: Pat Lashley To: Brooks Davis Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20060823212110.GD27961@lor.one-eyed-alien.net> References: <44E9F991.7020309@shapeshifter.se> <44EA1926.2000501@shapeshifter.se> <9C04919EE684029A410DE208@garrett.local> <44EAC40E.9000904@shapeshifter.se> <3E654CC0217F90E20FCD806E@garrett.local> <44EC90B7.6090908@shapeshifter.se> <44ECB0F2.9040300@FreeBSD.org> <20060823212110.GD27961@lor.one-eyed-alien.net> X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.0 (Mac OS X) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scan-Signature: 1b8fd31277999b768e0ff02d71d8f20cb832ef7c X-Spam-User: nobody X-Spam-Score: -4.1 (----) X-Spam-Score-Int: -40 X-Spam-Report: This mail has matched the spam-filter tests listed below. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for details about the specific tests reported. In general, the higher the number of total points, the more likely that it actually is spam. (The 'required' number of points listed below is the arbitrary number above which the message is normally considered spam.) Content analysis details: (-4.1 points total, 5.0 required) 0.1 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 0.1 HTML_FONTCOLOR_RED BODY: HTML font color is red -4.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] 0.4 DATE_IN_PAST_03_06 Date: is 3 to 6 hours before Received: date 0.2 AWL AWL: Auto-whitelist adjustment Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.5 Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org, Doug Barton , Fredrik Lindberg Subject: Re: Zeroconfig and Multicast DNS X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 22:08:28 -0000 > > I would agree that LLA is part of the minimal set; and as I mentioned > > before, it is the only part for which there is currently no FreeBSD > > solution. It should be possible to enable LLA on a per-NIC basis in > > rc.conf; and it should be possible to have both LLA and non-LLA addresses > > on the same port so that a FreeBSD host can easily operate in a mixed > > environment. (This also makes it easier for portable machines to handle > > being moved between a zeroconf-based environment and a more traditional > > DHCP environment.) > > I don't see how we can do the fallback stuff with our current > infrastructure. You could do it with profile.sh, but our current > infrastructure isn't really suited to it. In some ways what we really > need is an all knowing IPv4 address configuration program that can probe > the link and decide if it should a) use a static IP, b) use DHCP, or c) > use an LLA. It's possible we could do this in a shell script, but I'm > not sure we'd want to. I don't think those should necessarily be mutually exclusive. I'd much rather see something that uses aliases so that I can easily have both an LLA and a non-LLA address on the same interface. The only potentially tricky part is that the RFC requires (quite rightly) that in such a situation, the non-LLA address be preferred. If it were strictly a 'pick one' situation; then we could just extend our current setup so that the DHCP client could be told to fall back to LLA if it can't obtain a lease. I suspect that it will be less common to want to use both an LL/DHCP address and a static address; but I certainly wouldn't rule it out. (In fact, now that I think about it, I'm likely to run into that situation during the transition of my LAN from static RFC-1918 addresses to LLA.) -Pat