* Mark Andrews: >> On 25 Sep 2019, at 6:13 am, John Levine <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> In article <[email protected]> you >> write: >>> Florian Weimer <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> We added scope ID support to /etc/resolv.conf in upstream glibc a >>>> couple of years ago, in 2008. I can easily see that others may not >>>> have done this, so I agree that there could be problems. >>> >>> I did a bit of a survey in 2014 and found that prominent DNS >>> libraries didn't support link-local addresses back then >>> http://lists.cluenet.de/pipermail/ipv6-ops/2014-July/010035.html >>> Maybe it's better now :-) >> >> 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. >> >> (And why would you use link local rather than ULA for your DNS >> resolver, anyway?) > > ISP’s advertings ULA’s to customers have similar problems with > advertising LL to customers.
ULAs do not need scope IDs, so some of the problems are avoided. _______________________________________________ dns-operations mailing list [email protected] https://lists.dns-oarc.net/mailman/listinfo/dns-operations
