Re: RFC: very large, redundant packages
On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 03:35:21PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Apr 26, Matt Zimmerman <mdz@debian.org> wrote:
>
> >Because many networks use private (RFC1918) addresses, so there is a
> >possibility for conflict. There is no guaranteed way (with IPv4 anyway) to
> >automatically configure a unique and usable network address.
> There is. 169.254.0.0/16
Those are link-local addresses, and usually won't allow you to reach any
destination except other hosts on the same interface also using link-local
addresses. They are expected to be dropped by any router, but even if they
weren't, there would not be any return route.
I suppose you could use them solely for communication between UML and the
host, but that is not enough to fetch packages unless you are running a
proxy on the host system. Perhaps I could make progress by depending on
squid. Squid is incredibly useful with rootstrap anyway if you plan to do
more than one install. However, squid would still require manual
configuration in order to have squid accept proxy connections from UML.
This is a general problem for networking any emulator or emulator-like
program, and it would be nice if there were a way to make it work with zero
config. However, I think the best that we can hope for today is a
centralized config.
--
- mdz
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: