From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Aug 24 12:45:17 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 7A4C716A4EF; Thu, 24 Aug 2006 12:45:17 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from patl@volant.org) Received: from smtp.volant.org (gate.volant.org [207.111.218.246]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53C5D43D58; Thu, 24 Aug 2006 12:45:16 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from patl@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 1GGEdM-000KXR-4E; Thu, 24 Aug 2006 05:48:35 -0700 Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 05:44:20 -0400 From: Pat Lashley To: Fredrik Lindberg Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <44ED3BD1.3030206@shapeshifter.se> References: <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> <20060823221835.GA28978@lor.one-eyed-alien.net> <23D2619F6BACE4E728178EE5@garrett.local> <44ED3BD1.3030206@shapeshifter.se> X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.0 (Mac OS X) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scan-Signature: 9549dfdcd63b77beba3973726fde716993f503b7 X-Spam-User: nobody X-Spam-Score: -2.5 (--) X-Spam-Score-Int: -24 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: (-2.5 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 1.8 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 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: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 12:45:17 -0000 > Um..wouldn't the routing code handle this? > If you set a lla address and some other address on a interface like 192.168.0.2 > or something and then a default route of 192.168.0.1, I > would assume that an application without specific knowledge that tries > to contact an external address would get 192.168.0.2 as the source > address and that the packet is sent to 192.168.0.1. It should handle it; but I'd still want someone to check out various edge conditions and pathological cases. > If you're in the situation that you need lla (no dhcp server available), The presence or absence of a DHCP server is not a good indicator of the need or desire for LLA and/or mDNS. It is quite possible that the system is in a mixed environment where there are some systems which are LLA/mDNS only, others which are DHCP/static/unicast DNS only, and others which handle both. > you wouldn't know the default route right? I believe that there is a way to announce routing service via mDNS-SD; but I don't know the details. (I would be astonished to discover that the people who developed the zeroconfig design left that bit out...) -Pat