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.)
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.
This brings out that there are two potentially separable aspects of LLA.
1. Whether a Solaris box can talk to a box with LLA.
2. Whether Solaris ever (or in what cases) configures itself with an LLA.
On a single-homed node #1 is easy; just treat LLA as on-link.
But on a multi-homed node #2 brings in all the complexity of multi-homed
nodes; the need to put the interface designator in applications.
If we limit it to allow
ssh [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(which we might be able to implement in getaddrinfo... kind of a hack)
then at least the effort is bounded. But having every application on
Solaris be able to track the interface for LLA would be unbounded effort.
Erik
_______________________________________________
networking-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
