Zeroconfig and Multicast DNS

[Fredrik Lindberg]

Pat Lashley wrote:
> 
>>   The one thing
>> I'd be worried about is how the socket code handles connect() requests.
>> My hope would be that it would pick the address that goes with the
>> router to be used and thus the LLA would never be the source of a packet
>> going to a non-LLA address in normal circumstances.
> 
> The RFC is pretty explicit about the need to prefer non-LLA addresses.  
> We may need to put some explicit checks in the connect() code to enforce 
> that preference in the aliased case. The trick, of course, is to 
> recognize those cases where the LLA address must be used anyway.
> 
> Hmmm. Interesting routing problem. Basically, we need to prefer a route 
> that doesn't use the LLA (unless the destination is in an LLA); but 
> still handle the edge cases like having the default route be through an 
> LLA-only-connected router. (Which MUST do NAT...)
> 
> 

Um..wouldn't the routing code handle this?
If you set a lla address and some other address on a interface like 
192.168.0.2 or something and then a default route of 192.168.0.1, I
would assume that an application without specific knowledge that tries
to contact an external address would get 192.168.0.2 as the source
address and that the packet is sent to 192.168.0.1.

If you're in the situation that you need lla (no dhcp server available),
you wouldn't know the default route right?
And if you need to configure the default route manually it isn't really
zeroconfig any longer.

Fredrik Lindberg