On Sun, 2008-04-27 at 15:57 +0930, Tim wrote: > max bianco: > >>> What besides zero conf will do it? > > Tim: > >> In Fedora's case, it's usually called Avahi. > > Ric Moore: > > huh, I had thought ZeroConf died and blew away way back in the Caldera > > days. It was a good idea, but was cussed widely at the time. Ric > > I would have thought that Caldera lived and died before the name > "ZeroConf" got applied to link-local addresses, but I can't be sure. > > There are benefits in being able to create ad-hoc networks, that sort > themselves out completely (e.g. home LANs, without any servers). And > there are benefits to not having that system, at all. > > It's certainly better, the Linux way, that it's a separate service that > you can manage how you like. As opposed to how I saw it operating on > Windows, where if you weren't configured with a static address, or a > DHCP server didn't give you an address, the machine gave itself an > address without any option to avoid it. People plugged in, got some > address, and thought networking should work, and couldn't work out why > it didn't (they'd be on a different subnet than the rest). Whereas if > they got an error message about not having an address, they'd have > immediately started fault-finding in the right place. > I must still be in the wrong place. Turned avahi-daemon off in runlevels 345 and rebooted, yet NM's connection information still has a 169.254 address. Should the next step be turn NM off and service network on to see what happens then? -- Regards Simon -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
