Erik Nordmark wrote:
> I thought RFC 3927 was clear - clear in saying that it does *not* work
> on a multihomed machine.
I guess I misunderstood the RFC's intention as it just mentions
that there are problems with multi-homing and "potential" solutions.
But it does not explicitly mention that it does not work.
> (I was one of the Internet ADs at the time this RFC was being worked on
> and I remember some of the discussions about this...)
It is good to know this.
>> Here are some questions.
>>
>> 1. Is LLA support essential to Solaris networking that we need
>> to include it and make it work?
>
> What problem are we trying to solve?
I think the original idea was to make Bonjour aware machines work
together even in the absence of a routable address. But after
I took a look at the RFC, I guess I'd better ask the above question
before further investigation.
> Two laptops building a network between each other on the airplane?
> (It might be that WiFi will be available in airplanes before we build
> that solution.)
> Some other use case?
Maybe Michael can shed some light on this?
> FWIW Barnard Aboba looked at how LLA was used with Windows and found
> that in the vast majority of cases when it was enable it shouldn't have
> been enabled (it was enabled because the network was flaky and/or the
> DHCP server was slow.)
Could you please send a pointer to the above?
>> 2. If we really need to support it, is it OK for it to "work
>> in some cases but not all?" The RFC does not have a solution
>> to make it work with multiple interfaces.
>
> What user experience to be want to provide with LLA as one of the tools?
> Make things easier to use? Introduce new hard-to-debug failure cases?
>
> How does Bonjour/LLA work on a multihomed apple box?
Could someone using MacOS shed some light on this?
>> 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.
>
> Again, what would the user experience be with such an approach? Would
> the user have to designate the "lla interface" when the machine has more
> than one? Or would lla be disabled when the second interface comes up?
> If lla is helpful then disabling it seems counterproductive.
If we really need to support LLA, then we'll go ahead and try to
come up with a "consistent" model such that we can document the
failure modes. But I think we need to answer question 1 first.
Comments?
--
K. Poon.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
networking-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
