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 these limitations and
> their impact on applications are understood and accepted. This
> document does not recommend that IPv4 Link-Local addresses and
> routable addresses be configured simultaneously on the same
> interface.
Given this, I am beginning to doubt that the zeroconf package should
install a hook script in /etc/network/if-up.d/ which runs
/usr/sbin/zeroconf -i $IFACE
at a time when ifup has already configured the interface following some
method or other, selected in /etc/network/interfaces. I don't think
that it is appropriate that I end up with multiple addresses assigned to
the same interface:
# 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 brd 192.168.1.255 scope link ethp_0
inet 169.254.126.94/16 scope link ethp_0
# route
Kernel IP routing table
Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface
192.168.1.0 * 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 ethp_0
169.254.0.0 * 255.255.0.0 U 0 0 0 ethp_0
default lubbers 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 ethp_0
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.
--
Thomas Hood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
