On Fri, 2006-07-04 at 13:31 -0700, David Daney wrote: > jamal wrote: > > > > RFC 3927 defines what addresses are legit link local scope. The kernel > > says what to do with addresses that are link local scopes. It knows this > > if you tell it is a link local address. > > > > The point that I think you are missing is that RFC 3927 defines what > happens only on the 169.254.0.0/16 subnet and more specifically how ARP > packets should be formed and sent on that particular subnet. >
Ok, this is getting to be a cyclic discussion now. There is absolutely no definition of _any_ IPv4 addresses that are supposed to be link local other than the 169.254.0.0/16 defined. We have a flag which labels an IP address to have an attribute of link local. If someone configures an IP address such as 10.0.0.1 link local, that should be fine too. Refer to the example i gave you for RFC 1918 and why you cant stop people from sending ip address 10.0.0.1 to the internet; or the corrolary of why it would be stoopid to do so. > For link local addresses outside of the 169.254.0.0/16 network RFC 3927 > does not apply. > and the RFC said that? > Patching the ARP so that it does RFC 3927 ARP broadcasting for link > local addresses outside of 169.254.0.0/16 would be incorrect. > I apologize, I no longer have the patience to go over this discussion over and over and over again and again. So i wont be responding to any more emails. cheers, jamal - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
