From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Aug 24 20:09:09 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 BAC6F16A4E0; Thu, 24 Aug 2006 20:09:09 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from brooks@lor.one-eyed-alien.net) Received: from sccmmhc92.asp.att.net (sccmmhc92.asp.att.net [204.127.203.212]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F8C943D67; Thu, 24 Aug 2006 20:09:03 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from brooks@lor.one-eyed-alien.net) Received: from lor.one-eyed-alien.net ([12.207.12.9]) by sccmmhc92.asp.att.net (sccmmhc92) with ESMTP id <20060824200902m92002reqre>; Thu, 24 Aug 2006 20:09:02 +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 k7OK8v7r039355; Thu, 24 Aug 2006 15:08:58 -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 k7OK8uWU039354; Thu, 24 Aug 2006 15:08:56 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from brooks) Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 15:08:56 -0500 From: Brooks Davis To: Fredrik Lindberg Message-ID: <20060824200856.GB38855@lor.one-eyed-alien.net> References: <44EDA9A5.2050108@shapeshifter.se> <44EDBDD0.4050000@shapeshifter.se> <7CC9AC69410B69EBD31122E4@garrett.local> <44EDDB8C.9090504@shapeshifter.se> <0EC404BA0CA363942D250766@garrett.local> <20060824182640.GA37561@lor.one-eyed-alien.net> <20060824193127.GA38855@lor.one-eyed-alien.net> <44EE0548.4080503@shapeshifter.se> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="pvezYHf7grwyp3Bc" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <44EE0548.4080503@shapeshifter.se> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org, Pat Lashley , 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 20:09:09 -0000 --pvezYHf7grwyp3Bc Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 10:00:08PM +0200, Fredrik Lindberg wrote: > Brooks Davis wrote: > > > >The right way to deal with this is almost certainly to adopt the KAME > >%interface decoration for link local addresses. LLAs are meaningless > >outside the context of an interface. Unless you only have one interface > >with an LLA, you must know which interface you are addressing to know > >where to send the packet. While you can hack around this in some cases > >by trying all of them and hoping there aren't any collisions, I think > >that's the wrong way to go. > > >=20 > I don't know how familiar you are with the IPv6 code, but are you (or > somebody else) able to estimate in a short summary what would be > required to adopt the %interface decoration for IPv4? > If it turns out to be a very large task, will it still be worth it? I don't know the details so it's something that would have to be investigated. My feeling is that if we want to deal with multiple interfaces with LLAs we're going to need to do some not-insignificant kernel and libc work to support them. It not clear to me how much overall work that will be and how worthwhile it is. -- Brooks --pvezYHf7grwyp3Bc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFE7gdXXY6L6fI4GtQRAmaPAKDIeLyoMozCe3vYZ8X2A9AK65zkYQCgvZAB xaKvd4oKJYIZKGvA7DMQfUs= =+88U -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --pvezYHf7grwyp3Bc--