Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 22:00:08 +0200 From: Fredrik Lindberg <fli+freebsd-net@shapeshifter.se> To: Brooks Davis <brooks@one-eyed-alien.net> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org, Pat Lashley <patl+freebsd@volant.org>, Doug Barton <dougb@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Zeroconfig and Multicast DNS Message-ID: <44EE0548.4080503@shapeshifter.se> In-Reply-To: <20060824193127.GA38855@lor.one-eyed-alien.net> References: <44ED3BD1.3030206@shapeshifter.se> <AC5769F16F9730CABCCC4E61@garrett.local> <44EDA9A5.2050108@shapeshifter.se> <BE1059C6974AD43BC382E107@garrett.local> <44EDBDD0.4050000@shapeshifter.se> <7CC9AC69410B69EBD31122E4@garrett.local> <44EDDB8C.9090504@shapeshifter.se> <0EC404BA0CA363942D250766@garrett.local> <20060824182640.GA37561@lor.one-eyed-alien.net> <B69C016E0D5F0C26B40BE4C0@garrett.local> <20060824193127.GA38855@lor.one-eyed-alien.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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. > 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? Fredrik Lindberg
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?44EE0548.4080503>