John Levine <[email protected]> wrote: > > How are they with RFC 4193 ULAs? I've been using a cache at a ULA on > my two-segment home network and it seems to work fine.
I would expect them to "just work" modulo the network connectivity issues associated with ULAs mentioned by Mark. The problem with link-local addresses is "which link?" so to answer that the resolver address has to be scoped. When I looked, the common problem was to store the resolver address as 16 bare bytes which lacks space for the interface scope, rather than sockaddr_in6 which includes the scope and other complications. That's if the code parsed and ignored the scope; it was also common to simply fail to parse the scoped address. I also have vague worries about lurking bugs with RDNSS and DHCPv6 resolver configuration: the addresses on the wire are bare and only implicitly scoped to the interface they arrived on, which offers so many opportunities to make mistakes. Tony. -- f.anthony.n.finch <[email protected]> http://dotat.at/ Thames, Dover, Wight, Portland, Plymouth: Southwesterly 5 to 7, occasionally gale 8 at first in Thames, Dover and Wight. Slight or moderate in Thames, but elsewhere mainly moderate or rough, although very rough at first in southwest Plymouth. Rain or showers. Good, occasionally poor. _______________________________________________ dns-operations mailing list [email protected] https://lists.dns-oarc.net/mailman/listinfo/dns-operations
