Kacheong Poon wrote:
James Carlson wrote:
Thus, doing nothing means that windows/mac machines stuck with LLAs
(for whatever reason) will be accessible only by 'cheating.' The user
will have to explicitly (manually) configure an address in the LLA
range on one of the interfaces, and treat it as a regular subnet.
That might be "good enough" for most debugging purposes.
The RFC also states that the above SHOULD NOT be done. And
the way a routable address can talk to a LLA is
Whichever interface is used, if the destination address is in the
169.254/16 prefix (excluding the address 169.254.255.255, which is
the broadcast address for the Link-Local prefix), then the sender
MUST ARP for the destination address and then send its packet
directly to the destination on the same physical link.
So if the host has more than one interfaces, I guess it just
means that an ARP MUST be sent to all of them to find out where
the LLA is. I don't know if it is a good idea. But if we need
to support this usage, I guess this is the way to do it...
This is not an acceptable way to do this IMO, since LLA's are not unique
across multiple data-links. You could ARP on one interface and get a
response, but from a system that just happens to have the same address
as another system you intended to communicate with on another interface.
The only reliable way to communicate to a LLA when the system has more
than one interface is to specify the output interface somehow.
-Seb
_______________________________________________
networking-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
