On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 07:06:21PM +1000, Anand Kumria wrote: > On Sun, Apr 03, 2005 at 03:28:24PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > It would be helpful if the program were to monitor the configuration of > > the interface and only bring up a zeroconf address in the absence of any > > other configuration (though if it were to do this it ought to look out > It is explicitly okay to have an interface with both a IPv4 routable > address and an IPv4 link-local It is possible but this behaviour is discouraged: the main reason for doing it is when failing over from a zeroconf address to an allocated one (for example, when a DHCP server becomes avaliable). I do believe the RFC recommends this behaviour and it's mostly how the Apple and Microsoft implementations appear to behave (see the appendix in the RFC). Because of this I do feel allocating an address when another is present ought to be at most optional behaviour. Allocating a route without an address is more useful since it allows communication with zeroconfed devices even when the system is explicitly configured (for example, statically) so I can see that usefully being done separately. Perhaps as another option, perhaps non-optionally. > If you know of any way I can programatically determine whether a > specific interface will use ARP to do hardware <-> IP address > resoultion, I'm certainly interested. You can determine the link type of the interface from the kernel (it is displayed as link/ether or whatever by 'ip link') and select specific interface types you know do ARP. That's not 100% ideal but it does appear from a brief glance to be what the kernel is doing internally so if it's good enough for the kernel I'd say it's good enough for zeroconf too :) . -- "You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever." -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
