Re: Assorted arm-buster problems - network configuration
On 7/5/19, Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> wrote:
> On Friday 05 July 2019 05:13:48 Brian wrote:
>
>> On Fri 05 Jul 2019 at 09:56:39 +0300, Reco wrote:
>>
>> > Third, whatever good avahi does is limited to a single L2 network
>> > segment by the very definition of how it works. This particular
>> > problem shows it BTW.
>> >
> And does it very well both for avahi-daemon, and the dhcpd's that invent
> avahi like addresses out of thin air, and then giving that BS priority
> over the admins attempts to setup his network to his liking by giving
> them a metric of 202 when the default priority/metric is 1024.
>
> So his (and my) only recourse is to rip that stuff out, with a root rm -f
> if that what it takes to get rid of them. IMO, bug reports should be
> filed against the dhcpd's both 4 and 6 to get rid of their reporting
> bogus data if there are no servers responding to their requests.
Hi Gene,
Please understand that assigning a 169.254.0.0/16 address to an
interface that doesn't get a reply from a dhcp server is 'standards
compliant' behavior. So if you do file a bug report, rants about
'bogus data' won't help your case; quoting RFC 3927 section 1.9.2
might.
RFC 3927: Dynamic Configuration of IPv4 Link-Local Addresses
1.9. When to configure an IPv4 Link-Local address
2. If a host finds that an interface that was previously
configured with an IPv4 Link-Local address now has an operable
routable address available, the host MUST use the routable
address when initiating new communications, and MUST cease
advertising the availability of the IPv4 Link-Local address
through whatever mechanisms that address had been made known to
others.
Regards,
Lee
Reply to: