James Carlson wrote:
> I suspect that talking to such machines on your local network (when
> you have a routable address yourself) requires special work.
> Otherwise, you'll misidentify the peer as off-link and send your
> replies to a router. (Perhaps it'll still work if there's a matching
> route and the router knows what to do with LLA ... and allows
> one-armed forwarding. More likely, it'll fail.)
The RFC states that the above MUST NOT be done.
> Thus, doing nothing means that windows/mac machines stuck with LLAs
> (for whatever reason) will be accessible only by 'cheating.' The user
> will have to explicitly (manually) configure an address in the LLA
> range on one of the interfaces, and treat it as a regular subnet.
> That might be "good enough" for most debugging purposes.
The RFC also states that the above SHOULD NOT be done. And
the way a routable address can talk to a LLA is
Whichever interface is used, if the destination address is in the
169.254/16 prefix (excluding the address 169.254.255.255, which is
the broadcast address for the Link-Local prefix), then the sender
MUST ARP for the destination address and then send its packet
directly to the destination on the same physical link.
So if the host has more than one interfaces, I guess it just
means that an ARP MUST be sent to all of them to find out where
the LLA is. I don't know if it is a good idea. But if we need
to support this usage, I guess this is the way to do it...
--
K. Poon.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
networking-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
