On Friday 22 August 2003 05:40, Keith Moore wrote: > > > But then again, I don't think that most apps need to do > > > anything to discourage their use with link-local addresses. > > > > I agree. I am not worried about that if they are not in DNS. I am > > worried about the case below. > > What about apps that need to pass their hosts' addresses to their peers? > Where do they get those addresses in the first place? For a variety of > reasons, DNS isn't a reliable way to find your own addresses. So you get > them from the interfaces. Right now the obvious thing to do is to skip > over any LL addresses that are assigned to your interfaces, in order to > avoid giving LL addresses to your peers, but this only works if all > participating hosts have routable addresses. If we start expecing apps to > use LL addresses, all bets are off, and we are back to a NAT-like > situtation where multiparty apps have to implement their own proxies, > routing, and perhaps even addressing in order to function. > > And what happens when vendors start shipping support for LLMNR? Will > getaddrinfo() (or other API used for DNS lookup) suddenly start doing LLMNR > queries if it thinks that DNS is unreachable? Will apps that were formerly > using getaddrinfo to do DNS queries then get exposed to LL addresses even > though they don't work properly with those apps?
One solution may be to have a configurable switch for the behavior of existing APIs (getaddrinfo...), like the existing nsswitch.conf ? --julien -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
