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'. > > That's not buggy:
Yes it is, if this only existed in /etc/network/interfaces
iface eth0 inet6 static
[...]
That is it a bug if an an IPv4 link local address appears on the eth0
interface. If there were also a line like:
iface eth0 inet static
*then* an IPv4 link local address should be assigned.
> interfaces it can (IPv6 address assignment is rather different to IPv4
> so this is can sensibly be done by the kernel - there's no policy in
> having an ethernet link local address, for example).
Actually the defense mechanism isn't so different -- just the allocation
method. I've been thinking about factoring the link-local defense state
machine out of the IPv6 layer in the kernel and then using it for any
addresses marked as IPv4 link-local.
Cheers,
Anand
--
`When any government, or any church for that matter, undertakes to say to
its subjects, "This you may not read, this you must not see, this you are
forbidden to know," the end result is tyranny and oppression no matter how
holy the motives' -- Robert A Heinlein, "If this goes on --"
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
