On Friday 03 February 2012 11:19:22 Stefano Babic wrote: > On 03/02/2012 12:34, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > On Thursday 26 January 2012 04:21:21 Stefano Babic wrote: > >> On 26/01/2012 00:40, Joe Hershberger wrote: > >>>> I have a basic question about your patchset. RFC3927 requires > >>>> that addresses are continuosly checked to avoid conflicts - > >>>> this is a strict requirement. > >>> > >>> True. It cannot be 100% compliant in every use-case. > >> > >> It is important that these limitations are well documented > >> > >>> Any time we are processing NetLoop, we will handle conflict > >>> correctly. > >> > >> Yes, but NetLoop is running only when there some activity on the > >> network. > > > > isn't that the only time that matters ? if we're sitting at the > > command prompt, then u-boot has the network pretty much shut off > > (doesn't respond to ARP let alone anything higher). > > This is true, but what does happen with a second / multiple boards on > the network ? Some of them can steal the same ip address because our > board does not answer and conflicts are not solved. At least, I am > expecting that some ip address suddenly changes and that can be some > inconsistencies in ARP tables.
as soon as the conflict occurs, wouldn't that get detected then ? u-boot not actively responding to a few requests isn't really all that different from the packets getting dropped by say a busy hub. -mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
