>But this does not really solve the problem completely. How does
>the user know which Link to use for the link-local address?
we could use LLMNR to resolve names to link-local addresses,
or vice versa. i have done it and it works okay.
under our current implementation, LLMNR daemon talks to libc resolver
by normal DNS protocol (port 53) so link identifier will be lost.
however, if we use different inter-process communication, or integrate
LLMNR into libc, we won't lose link identification (and we can set
sin6_scope_id right).
>The solution that will work for now is make a statement in the
>IETF and in industry IPv6 implementation documentation that
>link-local addresses SHOULD not be used as an IPv6 address
>type by applications. That link-local addresses SHOULD not be
>included in the DNS. That link-local adddresses SHOULD be
>restricted to IETF protocols on Hosts to perform Neighbor
>Discovery, Stateless Address Configuration, DHCPv6, or other
>operation protocols to bring a Host up on a network. The bottom
>line is link-local address are not usable for applications.
I completely agree that link-local address SHOULD NOT be on public
DNS database. i have already asked the author of
draft-ietf-dnsop-dontpublish-unreachable-03.txt to include the text,
and it is included.
itojun
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
