On Tue, 2003-08-19 at 04:15, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >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).
Indeed. We have done it this way and it works quite nicely. The resolver
API returns any scoped addresses together with an appropriate scope id.
MikaL
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
