Note I changed the title on the thread..
My problem with RFC 5889 (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5889) is that it
solves the problem simply by saying don't allocate link locals. The
issue I have is that it precludes the use of mDNS (which operate off of
link locals).
Some questions:
1)
On Jul 25, 2013, at 22:09, Don Sturek d.stu...@att.net wrote:
My problem with RFC 5889 (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5889) is that it
solves the problem simply by saying don't allocate link locals. The
issue I have is that it precludes the use of mDNS (which operate off of
link locals).
Don Sturek d.stu...@att.net wrote:
Note I changed the title on the thread..
Thank you.
I would like to know what a multi-link subnet via /128 means.
My problem with RFC 5889 (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5889) is that it
solves the problem simply by saying don't allocate
Hi Michael,
We did a good bit of work on the mDNS topic and there are quite a few
subtleties in the mDNS draft that are really focused only on correct link
local operation. Here are a few (from RFC 6762):
1) Section 3.1
Any DNS query for a name ending with .local. MUST be sent to the
mDNS
Hi Carsten,
Actually, we have done quite a bit of testing using site scoped multicast
and the Extended version of mDNS and it seems to work quite well (mainly
since we changed little in mDNS and only addressed the issues of using a
multicast scope other than link local)
Don
On 7/25/13 2:33 PM,
Don Sturek d.stu...@att.net wrote:
We did a good bit of work on the mDNS topic and there are quite a few
subtleties in the mDNS draft that are really focused only on correct link
local operation. Here are a few (from RFC 6762):
Ah, I understand now, and I agree.
I thought you
Hi Michael,
I mispoke on the last point. Should have read:multi-link subnets
versus allocating a /128
Don
On 7/25/13 3:07 PM, Michael Richardson mcr+i...@sandelman.ca wrote:
Don Sturek d.stu...@att.net wrote:
We did a good bit of work on the mDNS topic and there are quite a
few
