From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Lamparter Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: Prefer non link-local source addresses Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2011 23:56:27 +0200 Message-ID: <20110901215627.GG1142123@jupiter.n2.diac24.net> References: <1314908454-14359-1-git-send-email-jeff_harris@kentrox.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: "David S. Miller" , Alexey Kuznetsov , James Morris , Hideaki YOSHIFUJI , Patrick McHardy , netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org To: Jeff Harris Return-path: Received: from spaceboyz.net ([87.106.131.203]:42519 "EHLO spaceboyz.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757961Ab1IAV4o (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Sep 2011 17:56:44 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1314908454-14359-1-git-send-email-jeff_harris@kentrox.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, Sep 01, 2011 at 04:20:54PM -0400, Jeff Harris wrote: > Section 2.6.1 of RFC 3927 specifies that if link-local and routable addresses > are available on an interface, a routable address is preferred. Update the > IPv4 source address selection algorithm to use a 169.254.x.x address only if > another matching address is not found. > + if (ipv4_is_linklocal_169(ifa->ifa_address)) { > + lladdr = ifa->ifa_local; > + continue; > + } IP addresses have a scope field: # ip -4 a l eth0 2: eth0: mtu 1500 qdisc pfifo_fast state UP qlen 1000 inet 10.0.0.1/24 brd 10.0.0.255 scope link eth0 inet 172.22.80.50/25 brd 172.22.80.127 scope global eth0 would it not make sense to use to use that field instead? -David