On Fri, 10.02.06 10:54, Iván Sánchez Ortega ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > So, IMHO the algorithm to decide whether to choose the static or the > link-local address from a pool of addresses should be intelligent enough to: > - - Discard non locally routable addresses.
This is not an option, since it's fine to refer to external IP addresses with local host names. (such as creating a local name "debian.local" pointing to your local Debian mirror, like ftp.de.debian.org) The way to go is probably just to favor local IP addresses over non-locals if both are available. I guess I will implement something like this: 1. if a local/non-IPv4LL address exists, use it, quit 2. if a local/IPv4LL address exists, use it, quit 3. otherwise use what is left If I understand you correctly this algorithm is compatible with those AXIS cameras you were talking of, right? > I agree with Marc: link-local addresses (169.254.0.0) are preferible than > static addresses. I don't think so. In my LAN I use IP addresses from the range 192.168.50.x and would prefer I they are used instead of the 169.254.x.x addresses. > Or, avahi could add the relevant entry to the routing table (if there isn't > already a way to route traffic to link-local addresses), in order to comply > with RFC 3927*. This way, after I run avahi-browser (or whatever), I could > automagically use services on devices with a link-local address. If you want compliance with RFC 3927, you're probably better off installing an IPv4ll implemntation, such as Anand Kumrias "zeroconf" package. (yes, that package has a stupid name!) http://www.progsoc.uts.edu.au/~wildfire/zeroconf/ or apt-get install zeroconf Lennart -- Lennart Poettering; lennart [at] poettering [dot] net ICQ# 11060553; GPG 0x1A015CC4; http://0pointer.net/lennart/ _______________________________________________ avahi mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/avahi
