Hi Marcel, 2010/11/9 Marcel Holtmann <[email protected]>
> Hi Julien, > > > Zeroconf implementation conform to rfc 3927. > > Ready for a review > > before we go into review here, lets talk a bit about the naming. I don't > like to name this zeroconf at all. I think the correct term here to use > would be IPv4 Link Local or IPV4LL. > ok for IPV4LL > > I also always thought of the link local configuration highly integrated > into the DHCP support. Do you think that i have to use the structure "GDHCPClient"? Does local link method should be launch by the dhcp plugin ? Meaning that the DHCP client falls back to link > local in case it can not retrieve a valid lease. Should we really bother > with link local only network configurations? > Do you mean that the link local negociation should be launch on each dhcp fail ? It's what we want to do for our own need. > > Regards > > Marcel > > > _______________________________________________ > connman mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.connman.net/listinfo/connman > Regards, -- Massot Julien Operating System engineer Aldebaran Robotics +33 1 77 37 17 60 _______________________________________________ connman mailing list [email protected] http://lists.connman.net/listinfo/connman
