On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 11:51:55PM +0200, Fredrik Lindberg wrote: > Pat Lashley wrote: > > > >The problem with that is that we want to support the use of both on the > >same link. So we'd either need to allow more than one keyword, or have > >'DHCP', 'LLA', 'LLA+DHCP', etc. Neither of those is very attractive. I > >think it would be cleaner to have something like: > > The magic words aren't mutually exclusive, they are dealt with > individually. They could be named LLA4, LLA4FALLBACK and will > work together with the other options (DHCP, WPA, etc).
It just occured to me that the daemon could handle this without any interaction with dhclient or the static interface configuration. In the mode where you only want an LLA if there isn't another address it's a simple matter of watching the routing socket for messages and a) removing the LLA if an IPv4 address other than 0.0.0.0 is configured on the interface and b) (re)starting the process of obtaining an LLA when all other addresses have been removed. The daemon should be listening to the routing socket anyway because it should only run when the interface has link which requires it to exit when the link goes down similar to dhclient. I really need to go look at the code and see what you're doing now. :) > > ipv4-link-local-always="bge* fxp1" > > ipv4-link-local-fallback="fxp0" > > I find this scheme way too different from how other interface > configuration is done. Me too. I like the tags (obviously since I invented most of them :). I'm attempting to get rid of as many lists of interfaces as possible. -- Brooks
pgp57gvwiwjrd.pgp
Description: PGP signature
