On Dec 13, 2004, at 4:06 AM, Andrea Campi wrote:
I'd like to live complications such as this for a later stage. I'd say
if you have a multihomed machine you better know how to configure it;
the primary target for my work are laptops and other clients. That is
not to say I don't care; rather, I need
On Sun, Dec 12, 2004 at 03:25:27PM -0800, Peter Heerboth wrote:
> I'm not a zeroconf expert per se, but I would love to see FreeBSD have
> a great zeroconf implementation. Here are some things to think about.
>
> >
> >If your first implementation happens to leave the interface with a
> >169.254
On Sat, Dec 11, 2004 at 10:02:35AM +0100, Andrea Campi wrote:
> 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.
Yes please! Much of what ended u
I'm not a zeroconf expert per se, but I would love to see FreeBSD have
a great zeroconf implementation. Here are some things to think about.
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 mo
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'
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
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
