Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 14:40:27 -0500 From: Brooks Davis <brooks@one-eyed-alien.net> To: "JINMEI Tatuya / ?$B?@L@C#:H" <jinmei@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org, Pat Lashley <patl@volant.org>, Doug Barton <dougb@freebsd.org>, Fredrik Lindberg <fli+freebsd-net@shapeshifter.se> Subject: Re: Zeroconfig and Multicast DNS Message-ID: <20060825194027.GA50432@lor.one-eyed-alien.net> In-Reply-To: <y7v64ghvbqw.wl%jinmei@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp> References: <44ECB0F2.9040300@FreeBSD.org> <44ECBB61.9020808@shapeshifter.se> <5D7785ADC030FEBFB9A5E69D@garrett.local> <44ED8266.1060303@shapeshifter.se> <7C6CDF1CB0BC58A6ADE1FCA8@garrett.local> <44EDCEC2.7060109@shapeshifter.se> <93381966E13B960D4ACFF05C@garrett.local> <44EDF116.9050106@shapeshifter.se> <20060824184228.GC37561@lor.one-eyed-alien.net> <y7v64ghvbqw.wl%jinmei@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--fUYQa+Pmc3FrFX/N
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Fri, Aug 25, 2006 at 10:35:03AM +0900, JINMEI Tatuya / ?$B?@L@C#:H wrote:
> >>>>> On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 13:42:29 -0500,=20
> >>>>> Brooks Davis <brooks@one-eyed-alien.net> said:
>=20
> >> Um...I'm not sure if this is even possible. Let's forget mDNS and
> >> go back to basic IP.
> >> Say a multi-homed host has two interfaces both configured with an
> >> address in the rage 169.254/16, say 169.254.1.1 and 169.254.2.1 and
> >> it wants to initiate a connection to 169.254.3.1, how on earth should
> >> it be able to tell on which side 3.1 is located? There might even be
> >> one 3.1 on both side that could be completely different hosts.
>=20
> > You probably would need an extension similiar to the one for IPv6 LLAs.
> > i.e. the %bge0 in fe80::2e0:81ff:fe31:9f00%bge0.
>=20
> (I've not followed the discussion closely, so my apologize in advance
> if this message reacts to an off-topic.)
>=20
> Note that the '%bge0' notation works well thanks to the sin6_scope_id
> field of the sockaddr_in6{} structure. Since sockaddr_in{} doesn't
> have such an additional member to solve the ambiguity, the extension
> to the IPv4 addresses would not be that trivial.
Thanks for the response. That makes sense. I think due to the
sin_zero member in sockaddr_in{} we could fix this without breaking
ABI compatability if we shrunk sin_zero appropriatly (or for API
compatability created a union and #defined sin_zero) and then added a
reference to the interface index. That would have the advantage of also
letting us clean up the abuse of sin_zero to store the interface name in
ip_divert.c.
-- Brooks
--fUYQa+Pmc3FrFX/N
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (FreeBSD)
iD8DBQFE71IqXY6L6fI4GtQRAm6XAJ0aMc/axm6bB1blZI2cWw7Ly5jWMwCePXFq
kHJDif1Zvrxz7PU/VU6CCi0=
=ION5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--fUYQa+Pmc3FrFX/N--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060825194027.GA50432>