Re: 6MAN WG Adoption call : draft-jeong-6man-rdnss-rfc6106-bis

[Ole Troan <[e-mail]>]

> 
>>> I think link-local addresses should be valid for RDNSS options.
>>> They're valid for applications to use (as per RFC4007), and mean that
>>> an on-link resolver service would not be impacted by GUA or ULA
>>> renumbering events.
>> 
>> Saying that link-local addresses are valid seems like a reasonable position
>> to take, yes. I'd like us to note it explicitly in the document, though.
> 
> I don't have a strong opinion on whether to allow link-local
> addresses per se, but if we allow that, I think we should clarify
> which link (or link zone, in RFC4007 terminology) that link-local
> address belongs to.  In the case of router advertisements, I guess it
> makes most sense if it's the link over which the RA is sent out and
> received.  It might even look trivial, but I still think it's better
> to clarify that explicitly.  (And, I wouldn't be surprised if someone
> disagrees with this interpretation that makes most sense to me quite
> obviously.  In that case it's even a stronger reason why this should
> better be clarified explicitly).

it can’t possibly apply to a different link as there wouldn’t be any way to signal that.
3646 is silent on the issue of link-locals, my preference would be to stay silent in 6106bis too.
it isn’t obvious to me that common resolver libraries support link-local addresses?

cheers,
Ole