On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 10:55:15AM -0400, Pat Lashley wrote: > >If you want to communicate with an LLA host, fine, obtain an LLA > >address otherwise take a hike. > > I'd make that '..., obtain an LLA address, or figure out how to do it via > ARP, otherwise...' > > >My LLA implementation already does this..it never removes an address > >from a interface it didn't set itself, and it always sets address > >as aliases. > > That already makes it one step better than the Linux implementation I was > working with last year... > > > There is also an option to force it to assign > >(as an alias) a LLA address even if the interface is already is > >configured with another address. > > I think that I'd reverse the default on that. There should normally be no > harm in having an LLA address, as long as we've got the non-LLA preference > stuff working correctly. It is quite likely that the LLA address would > never actually be used; but so what?
Unless we modify the IPv4 routing code to actually know that different interfaces with LLAs are on different subnets, we will need to insure that there is only one interface with an LLA on it at once. The modification probably makes sense, but I have no idea what it would entail. -- Brooks
pgp6nDaVozRaW.pgp
Description: PGP signature
