From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Aug 24 18:26:48 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 F3D3A16A4DE; Thu, 24 Aug 2006 18:26:47 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from brooks@lor.one-eyed-alien.net) Received: from sccmmhc91.asp.att.net (sccmmhc91.asp.att.net [204.127.203.211]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52EFB43D55; Thu, 24 Aug 2006 18:26:46 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from brooks@lor.one-eyed-alien.net) Received: from lor.one-eyed-alien.net ([12.207.12.9]) by sccmmhc91.asp.att.net (sccmmhc91) with ESMTP id <20060824182645m910087irae>; Thu, 24 Aug 2006 18:26:45 +0000 Received: from lor.one-eyed-alien.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lor.one-eyed-alien.net (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k7OIQgbC038232; Thu, 24 Aug 2006 13:26:42 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from brooks@lor.one-eyed-alien.net) Received: (from brooks@localhost) by lor.one-eyed-alien.net (8.13.6/8.13.6/Submit) id k7OIQeq1038231; Thu, 24 Aug 2006 13:26:40 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from brooks) Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 13:26:40 -0500 From: Brooks Davis To: Pat Lashley Message-ID: <20060824182640.GA37561@lor.one-eyed-alien.net> References: <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> <0EC404BA0CA363942D250766@garrett.local> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="LZvS9be/3tNcYl/X" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <0EC404BA0CA363942D250766@garrett.local> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 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: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 18:26:48 -0000 --LZvS9be/3tNcYl/X Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 10:55:15AM -0400, Pat Lashley wrote: > >If you want to communicate with an LLA host, fine, obtain an LLA > >address otherwise take a hike. >=20 > I'd make that '..., obtain an LLA address, or figure out how to do it via= =20 > ARP, otherwise...' >=20 > >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. >=20 > That already makes it one step better than the Linux implementation I was= =20 > working with last year... >=20 > > 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. >=20 > I think that I'd reverse the default on that. There should normally be no= =20 > harm in having an LLA address, as long as we've got the non-LLA preferenc= e=20 > stuff working correctly. It is quite likely that the LLA address would=20 > never actually be used; but so what? Unless we modify the IPv4 routing code to actually know that different interfaces with LLAs are on different subnets, we will need to insure that there is only one interface with an LLA on it at once. The modification probably makes sense, but I have no idea what it would entail. -- Brooks --LZvS9be/3tNcYl/X Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFE7e9fXY6L6fI4GtQRAgVeAJkBV08nqh7McHrQ71JRSTvLXsyLhQCfX2hz VDT8nhRZOcxnCWFvWWoiJDc= =Rw36 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --LZvS9be/3tNcYl/X--