Darren J Moffat writes: > Kacheong Poon wrote: > > As part of the NWAM project, we are investigating the support > > of IPv4 LLA in Solaris. One big issue with IPv4 LLA support > > is the multi-homing nature of most Solaris machine. > > Most ? > > Most laptops and desktops (which IMO is where LLA is most valuable) > generally aren't multi homed.
Don't forget that even when a system itself is not using LLAs, LLA works right only when everyone on the network knows how to deal with it reasonably. This means that, for instance, a big server like jurassic.sfbay (which has quite a few interfaces) will need to support communication with peers that have LLAs. If it doesn't, then LLA just won't work on those networks -- the clients using LLAs will be cut off from talking to jurassic.sfbay. It's a two-way street. [For those outside of the SWAN: sorry for the internal references. "Jurassic" is the name of a very large central email and file system server out in Menlo Park.] > > 3. Is it OK to have certain limitations, such as only supporting > > LLA in one interface? Or not support the communication > > between LLA and routable address? Or ... This is to allow > > us to have a more "consistent" failure mode. > > I think some LLA support is better than nothing. I think the LLA > routing would just cause confusion and some very strange routing > problems for humans. I think routing of LLA must be prohibited. There's no mechanism to ensure uniqueness of LLAs across separate subnets. -- James Carlson, Solaris Networking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677 _______________________________________________ networking-discuss mailing list [email protected]
