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

[John Stracke <[e-mail]>]

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      |[e-mail]                     |
|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_                      |
\============================================================/