On Fri, Oct 26, 2001 at 11:44:12AM -0700, Paul Hoffman / VPNC wrote:
> Sorry to barge in with a technical, standards-related question. It
> seems that there is a common practice that when a host asks for an
> IPv4 address, such as through DHCP, but the host isn't attached to
> the network, that the software gives it an address of 169.254.x.y. Is
> this documented in any RFC? Should it be?
I couldn't find a reference to that netblock specifically in the
RFCs themselves but you might want to check out this:
draft-ietf-zeroconf-ipv4-linklocal-04.txt
] 1. Introduction
]
] As the Internet Protocol continues to grow in popularity, it becomes
] increasingly valuable to be able to use familiar IP tools such as ftp
] not only for global communication, but for local communication as
] well. For example, two people with laptop computers with built-in
] wireless Ethernet may meet and wish to exchange files. It is
] desirable for these people to be able to use IP application software
] without the inconvenience of having to manually configure static IP
] addresses or set up a DHCP server [RFC 2131].
]
] This document describes a method by which a host may automatically
] configure an interface with an IPv4 address in the 169.254/16 prefix
] that is valid for link-local communication on that interface. This
] is especially valuable in environments where no other configuration
] mechanism is available. The IPv4 network 169.254/16 is registered
] with the IANA for this purpose. Allocation of link-local IPv6
] addresses is described in "IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration"
] [RFC 2462].
I think this may be a good starting point for you.
> --Paul Hoffman, Director
> --VPN Consortium
Mike
--
Michael H. Warfield | (770) 985-6132 | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
/\/\|=mhw=|\/\/ | (678) 463-0932 | http://www.wittsend.com/mhw/
NIC whois: MHW9 | An optimist believes we live in the best of all
PGP Key: 0xDF1DD471 | possible worlds. A pessimist is sure of it!
