Pat Lashley wrote:
Um..wouldn't the routing code handle this?
If you set a lla address and some other address on a interface like
192.168.0.2
or something and then a default route of 192.168.0.1, I
would assume that an application without specific knowledge that tries
to contact an external address would get 192.168.0.2 as the source
address and that the packet is sent to 192.168.0.1.
It should handle it; but I'd still want someone to check out various
edge conditions and pathological cases.
If you're in the situation that you need lla (no dhcp server available),
The presence or absence of a DHCP server is not a good indicator of the
need or desire for LLA and/or mDNS. It is quite possible that the system
is in a mixed environment where there are some systems which are
LLA/mDNS only, others which are DHCP/static/unicast DNS only, and others
which handle both.
I treat LLA and mDNS as separate things. They can be used individually
or together. I see LLA as a way of configuring an IP-address while
mDNS is a way of resolving DNS-like hostnames.
Howevery, your statement above brings up a question, do you assume
that a system configured with lla should be able to communicate
with a system configured via dhcp?
I would assume no, per standard IP/routing rules as they would be
in different subnets and would require a router to tell them
about each other which somehow violates the link local scope of
the 169.254/16 address space.
you wouldn't know the default route right?
I believe that there is a way to announce routing service via mDNS-SD;
but I don't know the details. (I would be astonished to discover that
the people who developed the zeroconfig design left that bit out...)
Yes, discovering a NAT-router via SD is certainly possible, but I'm not
sure if this should be in the lla-daemon or in a separate program.
Fredrik Lindberg
_______________________________________________
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
