Sorry - i promised not to respond on this thread; but since i responded to Dave, its only fair i respond to you as well.
On Fri, 2006-07-04 at 22:45 +0200, Freek Dijkstra wrote: > jamal wrote: > > > I am assuming you have some form of configuration, no? You should only > > configure an IP address to be link local if you really mean it to be > > so. > > Typically, there is no user-configuration. > Not exactly - there are user space daemons in v4. Other OSes put this stuff in the kernel. > However, it will also broadcast other ARP replies, which is unnecessary. > If that breaks anything -- I do not know. I do not think it will break. > However, it clearly deviates from the behaviour defined in existing > standards, and I would strongly recommend only to deviate from existing > RFC standards if there is a very good reason to do so. > If the RFC claims that V4 link local addresses may conflict in the scenario they described (some strange setup), then it should apply to all V4 link local addresses. > By the way, David posed an interesting question -- what *is* the "scope" > used for now? I could not find a clear answer with Google. Perhaps > someone on the list like to elaborate. > I tried to describe it in previous email: If an address is configured as link local, it is used as the src address in communication when you are communicating in a route that is link local (typically within a single hop) - you may then have more than one route and IP address, of different scope. For going global paths you then use global ip addresses as src. Dont know if that made sense. cheers, jamal - 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
