On Friday 03 February 2012 11:19:22 Stefano Babic wrote:
On 03/02/2012 12:34, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Thursday 26 January 2012 04:21:21 Stefano Babic wrote:
On 26/01/2012 00:40, Joe Hershberger wrote:
I have a basic question about your patchset. RFC3927 requires that addresses are continuosly checked to avoid conflicts - this is a strict requirement.
True. It cannot be 100% compliant in every use-case.
It is important that these limitations are well documented
Any time we are processing NetLoop, we will handle conflict correctly.
Yes, but NetLoop is running only when there some activity on the network.
isn't that the only time that matters ? if we're sitting at the command prompt, then u-boot has the network pretty much shut off (doesn't respond to ARP let alone anything higher).
This is true, but what does happen with a second / multiple boards on the network ? Some of them can steal the same ip address because our board does not answer and conflicts are not solved. At least, I am expecting that some ip address suddenly changes and that can be some inconsistencies in ARP tables.
as soon as the conflict occurs, wouldn't that get detected then ? u-boot not actively responding to a few requests isn't really all that different from the packets getting dropped by say a busy hub. -mike