From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Aug 24 17:56:10 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 25D3B16A4DA; Thu, 24 Aug 2006 17:56:10 +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 5E4CE43D45; Thu, 24 Aug 2006 17:56:09 +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 1GGJUG-000Nko-Rj; Thu, 24 Aug 2006 10:59:32 -0700 Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 10:55:15 -0400 From: Pat Lashley To: Fredrik Lindberg Message-ID: <0EC404BA0CA363942D250766@garrett.local> In-Reply-To: <44EDDB8C.9090504@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> <44EDA9A5.2050108@shapeshifter.se> <44EDBDD0.4050000@shapeshifter.se> <7CC9AC69410B69EBD31122E4@garrett.local> <44EDDB8C.9090504@shapeshifter.se> X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.0 (Mac OS X) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scan-Signature: 5a15c5ea388ea90143f439612b97eda4b14aa29c 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 17:56:10 -0000 > If you want to communicate with an LLA host, fine, obtain an LLA > address otherwise take a hike. I'd make that '..., obtain an LLA address, or figure out how to do it via ARP, otherwise...' > My LLA implementation already does this..it never removes an address > from a interface it didn't set itself, and it always sets address > as aliases. That already makes it one step better than the Linux implementation I was working with last year... > There is also an option to force it to assign > (as an alias) a LLA address even if the interface is already is > configured with another address. I think that I'd reverse the default on that. There should normally be no harm in having an LLA address, as long as we've got the non-LLA preference stuff working correctly. It is quite likely that the LLA address would never actually be used; but so what? -Pat