On Sat, Dec 11, 2004 at 03:56:33PM -0500, Chuck Swiger wrote:
> >Just to check my assumptions: is it reasonable to assume autoipd
> >has total control over the 169.254 block? I don't want to have to
> >bother about preserving any existing address in that range etc.
>
> No, it is not reasonable. A
Andrea Campi wrote:
On Sat, Dec 11, 2004 at 01:47:19PM -0500, Chuck Swiger wrote:
[ ... ]
autoipd and DHCP/dhclient should never get into a fight, nor should autoipd
conflict with a manually-assigned network config: autoipd should only try
to configure a link-local address during the interval whe
On Sat, Dec 11, 2004 at 01:47:19PM -0500, Chuck Swiger wrote:
> If your first implementation happens to leave the interface with a 169.254
> IP address, it's doing something it shouldn't, however that is likely to be
> mostly harmless until you or someone has a chance to improve the
> implementa
Andrea Campi wrote:
On Sat, Dec 11, 2004 at 04:41:17AM -0500, Chuck Swiger wrote:
...but there is more there to read. It's fine to let an interface have a
169.254/16 IP and a "real" IP (assigned by DHCP, the user, etc) for a
little while during transitions, but not forever.
[ ... ]
Still, what'
Suleiman Souhlal napsal(a):
Hi,
On Wed, 2004-12-08 at 09:51, Michal Mertl wrote:
What do you think?
Wouldn't it be better to move all the calls to badport_bandlim() to
inside icmp_error()?
It makes sense, yes. Unfortunately it isn't possible in most cases -
echo/tstamp call icmp_reflect instead o
"Li, Qing" wrote:
>
> TCP simultaneous open does not seem to work in the current code.
> I've verified the behavior through ANVL.
>
> I will file a pr unless someone has any comment on it.
Please send me the PR number.
--
Andre
__
Edwin Groothuis wrote:
>
> On Sun, Dec 05, 2004 at 01:14:49AM +0300, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 05, 2004 at 12:53:52AM +0300, Maxim Konovalov wrote:
> > M> IMHO restoring the historic behaviour (even broken in some respects)
> > M> is the best thing we can do at the moment.
> >
> > + my
On Sat, Dec 11, 2004 at 04:41:17AM -0500, Chuck Swiger wrote:
> Andrea Campi wrote:
> [ ... ]
> >The way I'm addressing this is to have autoipd use SIOCAIFADDR
> >and manage exactly one address in the 169.254/16 block. This
> >means you will ALWAYS have an IP address in that range; if you
> >also r
On Sun, Dec 05, 2004 at 01:14:49AM +0300, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 05, 2004 at 12:53:52AM +0300, Maxim Konovalov wrote:
> M> IMHO restoring the historic behaviour (even broken in some respects)
> M> is the best thing we can do at the moment.
>
> + my vote.
Mine too.
> Using 'ipfw fwd'
Andrea Campi wrote:
[ ... ]
The way I'm addressing this is to have autoipd use SIOCAIFADDR
and manage exactly one address in the 169.254/16 block. This
means you will ALWAYS have an IP address in that range; if you
also run dhclient, you might have an additional IP and a default
route.
Thoughts?
Se
Hi all,
just a quick note to let concerned parties know I have started
working on the howl port. As mentioned on the dingo page, the goal
is to have a fully working BSD-licensed implementation of zeroconf.
At the moment I have autoipd working for me and slightly tested; I
plan to do more tests du
11 matches
Mail list logo
