Re: A Zeroconf situation?

>Effectively,  we have two ships-in-the-night V4 subnets on a broadcast
>domain.  Most V4 stacks won't have a link local and globally scoped address
>on the same interface.  Even if I multicast from a non v4LL address to a
>v4LL address, how would the v4LL device be able to respond to an 'off
>subnet' address (apparently, it wouldn't?)
>
>So in short, is there a
>
>1) Means to communicate between a link local and globally scoped address?
>Is it allowed?
>2) Means to discover the device(s) that have a Link Local address?

Communication between the link-local and routable subnets on the same 
physical link is allowed, encouraged, and described in

<http://www.zeroconf.org/Rendezvous/#RTLL>

>The fundamenal idea is that I can drop an unconfigured device onto any
>network in a non-disruptive way, and then discover and configure it while
>not having to mess with the stack/addressing of the configuring machine.
>
>Is this problem addressed?

Yes, this is an important issue. When Apple shipped the first AirPort 
base station all those years ago, the ability to configure it without 
having to change the network settings on the client machine was very 
important, and this is why we added route-to-link-local in OS 9, and then 
later in OS X when OS X launched.

Stuart Cheshire <[email protected]>
 * Wizard Without Portfolio, Apple Computer, Inc.
 * www.stuartcheshire.org