On Fri, Oct 26, 2001 at 11:44:12AM -0700, Paul Hoffman / VPNC wrote:
Sorry to barge in with a technical, standards-related question. It
seems that there is a common practice that when a host asks for an
IPv4 address, such as through DHCP, but the host isn't attached to
the network, that the software gives it an address of 169.254.x.y. Is
this documented in any RFC? Should it be?
I couldn't find a reference to that netblock specifically in the
RFCs themselves but you might want to check out this:
draft-ietf-zeroconf-ipv4-linklocal-04.txt
] 1. Introduction
]
] As the Internet Protocol continues to grow in popularity, it becomes
] increasingly valuable to be able to use familiar IP tools such as ftp
] not only for global communication, but for local communication as
] well. For example, two people with laptop computers with built-in
] wireless Ethernet may meet and wish to exchange files. It is
] desirable for these people to be able to use IP application software
] without the inconvenience of having to manually configure static IP
] addresses or set up a DHCP server [RFC 2131].
]
] This document describes a method by which a host may automatically
] configure an interface with an IPv4 address in the 169.254/16 prefix
] that is valid for link-local communication on that interface. This
] is especially valuable in environments where no other configuration
] mechanism is available. The IPv4 network 169.254/16 is registered
] with the IANA for this purpose. Allocation of link-local IPv6
] addresses is described in "IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration"
] [RFC 2462].
I think this may be a good starting point for you.
--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium
Mike
--
Michael H. Warfield | (770) 985-6132 | mhw(_at_)WittsEnd(_dot_)com
/\/\|=mhw=|\/\/ | (678) 463-0932 | http://www.wittsend.com/mhw/
NIC whois: MHW9 | An optimist believes we live in the best of all
PGP Key: 0xDF1DD471 | possible worlds. A pessimist is sure of it!