Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 15:07:32 -0400 From: Pat Lashley <patl+freebsd@volant.org> To: Brooks Davis <brooks@one-eyed-alien.net> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org, Doug Barton <dougb@freebsd.org>, Fredrik Lindberg <fli+freebsd-net@shapeshifter.se> Subject: Re: Zeroconfig and Multicast DNS Message-ID: <D6D2605619AD2B0F140F5802@garrett.local> In-Reply-To: <20060823212110.GD27961@lor.one-eyed-alien.net> References: <44E9F991.7020309@shapeshifter.se> <DD49A62B2AB4E38804FB10B6@garrett.local> <44EA1926.2000501@shapeshifter.se> <9C04919EE684029A410DE208@garrett.local> <44EAC40E.9000904@shapeshifter.se> <3E654CC0217F90E20FCD806E@garrett.local> <44EC90B7.6090908@shapeshifter.se> <44ECB0F2.9040300@FreeBSD.org> <C408C9E0406302DF5EE12E67@garrett.local> <20060823212110.GD27961@lor.one-eyed-alien.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > I would agree that LLA is part of the minimal set; and as I mentioned > > before, it is the only part for which there is currently no FreeBSD > > solution. It should be possible to enable LLA on a per-NIC basis in > > rc.conf; and it should be possible to have both LLA and non-LLA addresses > > on the same port so that a FreeBSD host can easily operate in a mixed > > environment. (This also makes it easier for portable machines to handle > > being moved between a zeroconf-based environment and a more traditional > > DHCP environment.) > > I don't see how we can do the fallback stuff with our current > infrastructure. You could do it with profile.sh, but our current > infrastructure isn't really suited to it. In some ways what we really > need is an all knowing IPv4 address configuration program that can probe > the link and decide if it should a) use a static IP, b) use DHCP, or c) > use an LLA. It's possible we could do this in a shell script, but I'm > not sure we'd want to. I don't think those should necessarily be mutually exclusive. I'd much rather see something that uses aliases so that I can easily have both an LLA and a non-LLA address on the same interface. The only potentially tricky part is that the RFC requires (quite rightly) that in such a situation, the non-LLA address be preferred. If it were strictly a 'pick one' situation; then we could just extend our current setup so that the DHCP client could be told to fall back to LLA if it can't obtain a lease. I suspect that it will be less common to want to use both an LL/DHCP address and a static address; but I certainly wouldn't rule it out. (In fact, now that I think about it, I'm likely to run into that situation during the transition of my LAN from static RFC-1918 addresses to LLA.) -Pat
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?D6D2605619AD2B0F140F5802>