)
Fcc: +sent-mail
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 12:59:19PM +1000, Anand Kumria wrote:
On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 10:35:36AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
That's not buggy:
Yes it is, if this only existed in /etc/network/interfaces
iface eth0 inet6 static
Oh, you're thinking of the Debian
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 01:55:51PM +1000, Anand Kumria wrote:
[Disabling zeroconf when an address is allocated otherwise.]
Actually I read it entirely the other way -- the RFC recommends
*against* doing it the way that has been done on these platforms.
The behaviour it's complaining about is
On Sun, Apr 03, 2005 at 03:15:23PM +0200, Thomas Hood wrote:
I am reading RFC 3927 Dynamic Configuration of IPv4 Link-Local
Addresses and I notice that it says.
IPv4 Link-Local addresses should therefore only be used where stable,
routable addresses are not available (such as on ad
On Sun, Apr 03, 2005 at 03:28:24PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
On Sun, Apr 03, 2005 at 03:15:23PM +0200, Thomas Hood wrote:
I am beginning to think that zeroconf should, in the ifupdown world,
either be a distinct configuration method or an option for the dhcp
method.
It would be helpful
On Sun, Apr 03, 2005 at 07:46:30PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
On Sun, Apr 03, 2005 at 05:21:41PM +0200, Thomas Hood wrote:
For the time being I think that the cleanest thing to do is to add a
zeroconf method to the inet and inet6 address families. Initially the
Note that zeroconf should
On Wed, 2005-04-06 at 18:49 +1000, Anand Kumria wrote:
On Sun, Apr 03, 2005 at 03:15:23PM +0200, Thomas Hood wrote:
# ip addr show ethp_0
8: ethp_0: BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP mtu 1500 qdisc pfifo_fast qlen 1000
link/ether 00:80:c7:ee:88:d6 brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff
inet 192.168.1.8/24
On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 07:08:18PM +1000, Anand Kumria wrote:
Yes - totally agreed, it is a bug that zeroconf currently wil attempt to
assign an IPv4 link-local address to an interface with an address family
of 'inet6'.
That's not buggy: an interface can quite happily run multiple protocols
On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 07:06:21PM +1000, Anand Kumria wrote:
On Sun, Apr 03, 2005 at 03:28:24PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
It would be helpful if the program were to monitor the configuration of
the interface and only bring up a zeroconf address in the absence of any
other configuration
On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 10:35:36AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 07:08:18PM +1000, Anand Kumria wrote:
Yes - totally agreed, it is a bug that zeroconf currently wil attempt to
assign an IPv4 link-local address to an interface with an address family
of 'inet6'.
That's
On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 11:04:25AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 07:06:21PM +1000, Anand Kumria wrote:
On Sun, Apr 03, 2005 at 03:28:24PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
It would be helpful if the program were to monitor the configuration of
the interface and only bring up a
I am reading RFC 3927 Dynamic Configuration of IPv4 Link-Local
Addresses and I notice that it says.
IPv4 Link-Local addresses should therefore only be used where stable,
routable addresses are not available (such as on ad hoc or isolated
networks) or in controlled situations where
severity 302684 serious
tags 302684 sid
thanks
On Sun, 2005-04-03 at 15:28 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
It would be helpful if the program were to monitor the configuration of
the interface and only bring up a zeroconf address in the absence of any
other configuration (though if it were to do this
On Sun, Apr 03, 2005 at 05:21:41PM +0200, Thomas Hood wrote:
For the time being I think that the cleanest thing to do is to add a
zeroconf method to the inet and inet6 address families. Initially the
Note that zeroconf should not be used with IPv6 - that includes its own
link local allocation
13 matches
Mail list logo