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

[David Farmer <[e-mail]>]

On 8/11/15 12:59 , Tore Anderson wrote:
> * Ole Troan
>
>> 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?
>
> Hi Ole,
>
> glibc does at least, but for it to work the the interface ID must be
> written to /etc/resolv.conf. That's a corner case that isn't
> necessarily immediately obvious to the developers of the piece of
> software that interprets RAs.
>
> I can't help but think that if RFC6106 had explicitly mentioned this
> corner case, bugs such as
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=720001 could have been
> prevented. So I'm with Lorenzo on this one.

I'm fine with link-locals being allowed or not, but they should be 
discussed either way, in hopes of avoiding bugs or incompatibilities.

I think I prefer to allowing them from a protocol perspective and maybe 
a future operational document could make recommendations about if it is 
good idea to actually use link-local DNS servers or not.


-- 
================================================
David Farmer               Email: [e-mail]
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE     Phone: [phone]
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029  Cell: 1-612-812-9952
================================================