Re: new issue: [LL36] Combine and rework section 1.7 and 2.11 to be clearer

On 12/5/03 2:58 PM, "Robert Elz" <[email protected]> wrote:

>   | Clarify this line please: " When the interface does have a working
> routable
>   | address, v4LL is not used."
>   | 
>   | Does "not used" mean effectively "turned off", as in there is no v4LL
>   | address whatsoever, or does "not used" mean, "Not using a separate
>   | 169.254/16 address, and just using the working routable address"?
> 
> What distinction are you trying to get at there?   I can't understand
> that at all.   If there is no 169.254/16 address, there is no v4LL
> address, surely???

Well, if I look at Apple's implementation, which is right now, the major one
to look at, when an interface is configured, either manually, or via DHCP,
then that address is what shows up when you use the zeroconf protocols to
look at it. So if I use SSH to the zeroconf mDNS name, the non v4LL -
configured address is used here. So it would appear that what is being done
is that when an address is configured by a non-v4LL method, that address is
used for all zeroconf-method communications.

So it appears as though the system is simply saying, "okay, we have a
'proper' ip address, use that for all the other zeroconf stuff as well."

> 
>   | If it means the former, I'd say that's bad. If it means the latter, I'd
> say
>   | that's good. In that case, I'd also suggest changing that line to read:
>   | 
>   | " When the interface does have a working routable address, a separate v4LL
>   | address is not configured, and the working routable address is mapped over
>   | as the v4LL address."
> 
> That is totally incomprehensible to me, what does "mapped over as" mean ?

Working routable address is used as the v4LL address as well.

john

-- 
"I have not yet begun to fight."
- John Paul Jones (aboard the Bon Homme Richard),Sept. 1779