jamal wrote:
broadcasting requirement would result in generation of unnecessary
network traffic in configurations that are probably the majority of
Linux deployments.
If you choose to configure something to be link local, then you should
live with the consequences.
169.254.0.0/16 is by definition link local. I think point made by Janos
is we should look at the attributes rather than value.
The converse is not true. And that is my problem with this idea.
10.0.0.1 is not supposed to be routed outside either. But we dont stop
people who are dumb enough to do it.
Have your user space set it to be link local and then fix the kernel if
it doesnt do the right thing.
I could see adding an additional interface attribute that specifies link
local, and then testing that.
It exists. Just use it. For testing just use the ip utility.
But why does it exist? There must be one or more reasons that it exists.
It must not exist to cause IPv4 ARP to do broadcast as specified in RFC
3927, or we would not be having this conversation.
Overloading its current semantics, will cause in unnecessary ARP
broadcasts in non RFC 3927 cases.
David Daney
-
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
