>> What I find interesting is that Neighborhood View at every XO shows >> *all* other XOs (plus their names) physically attached to the ethernet. >> 'olpc-xos' shows the non-customized XO with its eth0 (radio) IP >> address; the other XOs are shown with their eth1 (ethernet) IP addresses. >> >> My conclusion: The XOs are recognizing each other over the ethernet, >> despite having "non-pingable" IP address identities activated. > > The 169.x.x.x subnet is reserved for link-local addresses, which is > what these are. They are pingable from the local link. It's all > standards-compliant and kosher, be not afraid. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Link-local_address
I'm not afraid (nor am I looking for help). I understand whence the 169.x.x.x subnet comes from. My point is that ALL the XOs show up in each Neighborhood View, even though the other XOs (192.168.1..) cannot ping the non-customized XO (169.254...), nor can the non-customized XO ping the others. What I see the XOs doing is an "end run" around my concept of how remote nodes are supposed to be accessed. I believe 'ping' is behaving the standards-compliant way (192.168.1.0/24 does not access 169.254.0.0/16, and vice versa). Whereas what shows up in the XO Neighborhood View (and in 'olpc-xos') appears to ignore standards-compliance. As I said, I am not looking for help. I am sharing an observation, which I believe would not occur if I were not using XOs. mikus _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel