Zeroconfig and Multicast DNS

[Brooks Davis]

On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 08:40:09PM +0200, Fredrik Lindberg wrote:
> Pat Lashley wrote:
> >
> >I think that I'd reverse the default on that. There should normally be 
> >no harm in having an LLA address, as long as we've got the non-LLA 
> >preference stuff working correctly. It is quite likely that the LLA 
> >address would never actually be used; but so what?
> >
> 
> I've been thinking about that too, but I'm still not sure. The RFC
> says that you shouldn't add a LLA address to an interface that
> already is configured with a routeable address.
> 
> Configuring LLA via rc.conf should probably be done like DHCP, by
> using a magic word in the ifconfig_ifX-line.
> We could have two words, one called LLA that would run in the "forced"
> mode and another LLA2 (I can't come up a good name) which would run
> in the RFC compliant way.

Configuring in compliant mode is going to be hard with our current
setup.  To be honest, I'm not terriably worried about it.  The bigger
issue in my mind is that we need to deal one way or another with
multihomed hosts.

An a side note, the magic option should probably contain the number 4 in
it somewhere to differentiate it from other forms of LLA.

-- Brooks
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-net/attachments/20060824/c364d617/attachment.pgp