> 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
_______________________________________________
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
