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
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 4:56 PM, Kerry Lynn kerlyn2...@gmail.com 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
In your letter dated Wed, 23 Nov 2011 12:48:02 +1100 you wrote:
ULA has similar scope issues. It's just that the OS don't knock
you over when you do bind(), connect(), sendto() and sendmsg()
without scope information. You can avoid using non local ULA with
the same filtering mechanisms.
I think
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 records but they are essentially useless as the
scope information is lost. People
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 records but they are essentially
Kerry,
In the case of link-
local adresses stored in 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
On 2011-11-23 11:09, Kerry Lynn wrote:
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 4:56 PM, Kerry Lynn kerlyn2...@gmail.com 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
In message 4ecc0bab.4040...@gmail.com, Brian E Carpenter writes:
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
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.
I would rather not rely on DNS for that. Local discovery protocols like UPNP
look more adequate to the task of
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 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
10 matches
Mail list logo
