Hi Mihai,
> > Yes. I'm thinking about two new values for "IPv4.method", called
> > "dhcp-only" and "linklocal-only". Using main.conf would not be the
> > appropriate place because we are interested in interface specific
> > settings where, for instance, one interface can be dhcp-only and
> > another linklocal-only.
>
> I have no objections in adding a "link-local" method. However
> something like only doing DHCP on a per service interface seems a bit
> odd. What is wrong with providing link-local if DHCP temporary or
> permanently fails?
>
> This is similar to IPv6, where you always get a link-local address. I
> have no idea what harm would it do for IPv4 to fallback to a
> link-local address.
What is the ultimate reason for adding a "dhcp-only" or "linklocal-only"
option? Is it that ConnMan currently behaves badly? Or is there a
particular reason why sending DHCP packets on a link that doesn't
support the protocol is considered harmful - and if so, why? Same goes
for creating a link-local IPv4 address, why is that a problem? I do know
that currently everything is not as optimal as could be, but that can be
fixed eventually.
> If you are using Ethernet, then both interfaces should be configured.
> In general, the plugged in cable aka carrier for Ethernet was support
> to indicate that it gets used. Of course only one can have the default
> route of course.
The current feature is that all ethernet interfaces are treated in the
very same manner as every other service; if there already is another
service connected, the newly connected ethernet will not be connected
either. This is a matter of defining a detailed expectation of ethernet
network behavior plus a small amount of fixing.
Cheers,
Patrik
_______________________________________________
connman mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.connman.net/mailman/listinfo/connman
