On Sun, 2004-05-09 at 03:16, Mike Klinke wrote: > On Sunday 09 May 2004 01:17, david walcroft wrote: > > > > > Thanks Scot,just what I needed and I always have the 169.254.0.0 > > address it must be my ISP,I'll have to read up on subnet masks. > > > > david > > This address is from the zeroconf project which has been incorporated > into the later RH Linux distributions. > > http://www.zeroconf.org/ > > Search the list archives for more commentary. > > Regards, Mike Klinke I had thought that the zero configuration functions only set an IP address if the interface did not have one already assigned. Why keep a route for something the system should never use once it is configured for the network? Do they discuss the potential security implications in the RFCs? I guess I need to go read them to find out. -- Scot L. Harris <webid@xxxxxxxxxx>
