Kerry, > In the case of link- > local adresses stored in AAAA records, the zone index would seem to > indicate the corresponding interface with respect to the *server* (assuming > a multi-homed server here).
Which is completely and utterly irrelevant to any host except that one particular physical DNS server. So I don't see what possible use it has for anyone. Regards Brian On 2011-11-23 10:56, Kerry Lynn wrote: > On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 3:52 PM, Brian E Carpenter < > brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 2011-11-23 05:34, Philip Homburg wrote: >>> In your letter dated Tue, 22 Nov 2011 14:30:03 +1100 you wrote: >>>> On a related issue to link locals in URI's, we don't currently have >>>> a good method of supporting link locals in the DNS. Sure we can >>>> add them as AAAA records but they are essentially useless as the >>>> scope information is lost. People keep saying use LL for disconnected >>>> but it just doesn't work without more support. >> Other people keep saying "use ULA for disconnected". The fact >> that you can put ULA into (er, local) DNS without any fancy >> stuff is a distinct advantage. >> >> IMHO link-local should be used only for bootstrapping a host and >> for diagnostic purposes. I guess I could statically configure a >> printer on fe00::a%1 if I really had no choice. >> >> This is a distinctly different problem than the one that kicked off the > link- > local discussion. In the web browser case, you know the link-local > destination address of the server a priori but it only has validity with > respect to a particular link, and there's no way to indicate the zone > index to the browser (assuming multi-homed client here). The once- > existing capability was removed because there is no RFC support for it. > > The DNS case seems like a server-side issue. In the case of link- > local adresses stored in AAAA records, the zone index would seem to > indicate the corresponding interface with respect to the *server* (assuming > a multi-homed server here). What's more, the DNS server would need to > keep track of the interface on which the query arrived and only respond > with a link-local address if the client and server are on the same > interface. > > Some additional observations: > - If you want to stay with link-local addresses then perhaps multicast > DNS is the best solution for you. > - If you want to stay with unicast DNS, then ULAs have the advantage > of being routable and the problem goes away. > - If you want to stay with link-local addresses *and* DNS, then perhaps > you need to engage dnsext WG to discuss the server-side issues. > > -K- > > > Brian >>> For disconnected operation, why not have getaddrinfo fill in the scope? >>> Just set it to the interface over which the DNS reply arrived. >>> >>> I have to admit that this may become a bit tricky if the DNS resolver is >> local >>> or if interface information is lost in some other way. >>> >>> > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
