On 06/04/2012 12:32 AM, Keisuke MORI wrote:
> Hi Alan,
>
> Thank you for your comments.
> It's an interesting idea, but I don't think we need to care about IPv4
> link-local addresses
> because users can configure using the same manner as a "regular" IP address.
> (and it's used very rarely)
>
> In
Hi Alan,
Thank you for your comments.
2012/5/31 Alan Robertson :
> It's straightforward to determine if an IP address is link-local or not -
> for an already configured address.
>
> 3: eth1: mtu 1500 qdisc pfifo_fast state
> UP qlen 1000
> link/ether 94:db:c9:3f:7c:20 brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff
>
It's straightforward to determine if an IP address is link-local or not
- for an already configured address.
3: eth1: mtu 1500 qdisc pfifo_fast
state UP qlen 1000
link/ether 94:db:c9:3f:7c:20 brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff
inet 10.10.10.30/24 brd 10.10.10.255 *scope global* eth1
inet6 fe80::96
I would like to propose an enhancement of IPaddr2 to support IPv6 as
well as IPv4.
I've submitted this as a pull request #97 but also posting to the ML
for a wider audience.
I would appreciate your comments and suggestions for merging this into
the upstream.
[RFC] IPaddr2: Proposal patch to
