On Wed, May 28, 2003 at 07:20:11PM +0200, Niklas Bergh wrote: > >> Would it be too much to ask that fred, when it scans through all of the > >> computers available interfaces, at least tries to stay with the interface > >> that can be found in the 'node' file if it still is present in the system > >> (even if a new interface or two have appeared). > > > >Fred iterates through all the interfaces, it uses the last VALID > >INTERNET ADDRESS. This explicitly excludes 0.0.0.0, 192.168.*, 10.*, > >127.* and 172.16.* to 172.31.* inclusive. If your computer does not have > >a real IP address it is probably firewalled. If so you need to force the > >ipAddress in the config file. If that doesn't work, there is a bug. > > Of course I had a valid IP address.. it still was on the same interface as > it has been since my computers beginning of time.. The difference was that > there had appeared another interface with a (possibly discussable) valid IP > address. This 'phenomenon' might or might not change things for the > iterating scheme described above, I would guess that it is up to the OS to > define the order of interfaces just as it feels like at any given time. > > What I really meant with my suggestion was that if fred encounters two or > more, accrording to whatever filtering scheme used, valid IP addresses then > why can't it just have a check to see if one of those addresses are the one > currently in use and in that case continue using it. It is simply a matter > of adding another, possibly very simple, check before making the final > decision (which very well still might be to use the last encountered valid > IP) of which of the valid addresses to use.
0.0.0.0 IS NOT A VALID IP ADDRESS. > > As of now, if I let fred automatically detect what ipaddress to use and it > manages to do that I have to recheck that fred *still* detects the same > address whenever some network-related configuration changes (attach USB > camera, attach firewire device, establish VPN connection or so on). This is > the second time in one or two months I encounter this problem. > > /N All of the above will use private IP addresses, that is what they are for. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20030528/ff40b666/attachment.pgp>
