ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Thinking differently about the site local problem (was: RE: site local addresses (was Re: Fw: Welcome to the InterNAT...))

2003-04-03 06:23:41
Jeroen Massar wrote:

John Stracke wrote:
Jeroen Massar wrote:

Ad-hoc networks are another similar case, where two machines are connected via ad-hoc wireless, bluetooth, firewire,
or similar.
In any other way do you like remembering and typing over 128bit
addresses?? :)

:: is your friend. If you're building an ad hoc, point-to-point network, you can pick convenient addresses.

:: as in all 0's which corresponds to 'not bound'?

No, as in a string of 0s. If you set up your own isolated network, you can make one host be 1::1 and the other 1::2.

Most OS's require a (unique) hostname to be entered/automatically
generated on install
False.
And is there any reasoned argument instead of the simple 'false'?
It seems pretty obvious: no OS can require a unique hostname at install time, because it has no way of checking uniqueness. The Unices I've installed (various versions of Solaris and Linux), even if they prompt for a hostname, will accept the default of "localhost.localdomain". In addition, many, many machines (especially those bought preinstalled) are installed from standardized images, and have standardized hostnames.

--
/============================================================\
|John Stracke      |jstracke(_at_)centive(_dot_)com                     |
|Principal Engineer|http://www.centive.com                   |
|Centive           |My opinions are my own.                  |
|============================================================|
|"God does not play games with His loyal servants." "Whoo-ee,|
|where have you *been*?" --_Good Omens_                      |
\============================================================/





<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>