On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 01:55:51PM +1000, Anand Kumria wrote:
[Disabling zeroconf when an address is allocated otherwise.]
> Actually I read it entirely the other way -- the RFC recommends
> *against* doing it the way that has been done on these platforms.
The behaviour it's complaining about is
")
Fcc: +sent-mail
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 12:59:19PM +1000, Anand Kumria wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 10:35:36AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > That's not buggy:
> Yes it is, if this only existed in /etc/network/interfaces
> iface eth0 inet6 static
Oh, you're thinking of the Debian configu
On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 11:04:25AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 07:06:21PM +1000, Anand Kumria wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 03, 2005 at 03:28:24PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
>
> > > It would be helpful if the program were to monitor the configuration of
> > > the interface and only b
On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 10:35:36AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 07:08:18PM +1000, Anand Kumria wrote:
>
> > Yes - totally agreed, it is a bug that zeroconf currently wil attempt to
> > assign an IPv4 link-local address to an interface with an address family
> > of 'inet6'.
>
On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 07:06:21PM +1000, Anand Kumria wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 03, 2005 at 03:28:24PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > It would be helpful if the program were to monitor the configuration of
> > the interface and only bring up a zeroconf address in the absence of any
> > other configurati
On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 07:08:18PM +1000, Anand Kumria wrote:
> Yes - totally agreed, it is a bug that zeroconf currently wil attempt to
> assign an IPv4 link-local address to an interface with an address family
> of 'inet6'.
That's not buggy: an interface can quite happily run multiple protocols
On Wed, 2005-04-06 at 18:49 +1000, Anand Kumria wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 03, 2005 at 03:15:23PM +0200, Thomas Hood wrote:
> > # ip addr show ethp_0
> > 8: ethp_0: mtu 1500 qdisc pfifo_fast qlen 1000
> > link/ether 00:80:c7:ee:88:d6 brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff
> > inet 192.168.1.8/24 brd 192.168.1.25
On Sun, Apr 03, 2005 at 07:46:30PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 03, 2005 at 05:21:41PM +0200, Thomas Hood wrote:
>
> > For the time being I think that the cleanest thing to do is to add a
> > zeroconf method to the inet and inet6 address families. Initially the
>
> Note that zeroconf s
On Sun, Apr 03, 2005 at 03:28:24PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 03, 2005 at 03:15:23PM +0200, Thomas Hood wrote:
>
> > I am beginning to think that zeroconf should, in the ifupdown world,
> > either be a distinct configuration method or an option for the dhcp
> > method.
>
> It would be
On Sun, Apr 03, 2005 at 03:15:23PM +0200, Thomas Hood wrote:
> I am reading RFC 3927 "Dynamic Configuration of IPv4 Link-Local
> Addresses" and I notice that it says.
>
> >IPv4 Link-Local addresses should therefore only be used where stable,
> >routable addresses are not available (such
On Sun, Apr 03, 2005 at 01:30:00PM +0200, Thomas Hood wrote:
> Do you think that there should be a "zeroconf" configuration method for
> the inet and inet6 address families (in the sense of the term 'method'
> used in interfaces(5))? That is, would it make sense to have a stanza
> like this in /et
On Sun, Apr 03, 2005 at 05:21:41PM +0200, Thomas Hood wrote:
> For the time being I think that the cleanest thing to do is to add a
> zeroconf method to the inet and inet6 address families. Initially the
Note that zeroconf should not be used with IPv6 - that includes its own
link local allocatio
severity 302684 serious
tags 302684 sid
thanks
On Sun, 2005-04-03 at 15:28 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> It would be helpful if the program were to monitor the configuration of
> the interface and only bring up a zeroconf address in the absence of any
> other configuration (though if it were to do th
On Sun, Apr 03, 2005 at 03:15:23PM +0200, Thomas Hood wrote:
> I am beginning to think that zeroconf should, in the ifupdown world,
> either be a distinct configuration method or an option for the dhcp
> method.
It would be helpful if the program were to monitor the configuration of
the interface
I am reading RFC 3927 "Dynamic Configuration of IPv4 Link-Local
Addresses" and I notice that it says.
>IPv4 Link-Local addresses should therefore only be used where stable,
>routable addresses are not available (such as on ad hoc or isolated
>networks) or in controlled situations whe
Do you think that there should be a "zeroconf" configuration method for
the inet and inet6 address families (in the sense of the term 'method'
used in interfaces(5))? That is, would it make sense to have a stanza
like this in /etc/network/interfaces?:
iface eth0 inet zeroconf
--
Thomas Hood
16 matches
Mail list logo
