[quagga-dev 5449] Re: [PATCH] RFC 2328, chap 8.1:
paul at clubi.ie
paul at clubi.ie
Tue Jun 3 16:55:21 BST 2008
On Tue, 3 Jun 2008, Andrew J. Schorr wrote:
> Currently, with the existing code base, it is fine to have shared
> addresses (i.e. same local address used on multiple interfaces), as
> long as the PtP interfaces have unique peer addresses. This works
> fine currently (case 'a'), so I see no problem. Why is 'a' a
> requirement if it is working fine today with existing code without
> this detection?
It works in your setup, sure. Possibly cause you took care to avoid
non-working configurations ;).
But in other setups, it won't, such as where there are interfaces
where the shared-address is the identifying address (e.g. subnet
assigned on PtP, or the shared address is shared with some other
> But if by "shared addresses" you mean PtP links with both the same
> local and peer addresses, then yes, that is a new situation not
> currently supported, and auto-detection might be nice.
Well, put it this way, if the implementation auto-detects the shared
address then that *expands* the administrative options we can offer,
from "auto" to "configure".
Exactly what the administrative defaults should be is debatable - but
shouldn't affect implementatoin too much..
> I don't see why 'a' requires any configuration at all. Most likely
> I'm confused.
Sorry: If we decide on "or not" for 'a', then it must require
I'm unclear on what people's positions are on 'a'.
> But maybe I'm just thinking of this from a linux perspective that is
> not appropriate for other platforms...
Doesn't subnet addressing also work on Linux PtP? ;)
Paul Jakma paul at clubi.ie paul at jakma.org Key ID: 64A2FF6A
God is real, unless declared integer.
More information about the Quagga-dev