On Sat, 2003-08-23 at 08:39, Bound, Jim wrote:
> Most opposition is not documenting or making clear the problems that can
> occur from IPvLL use and right now I only see one. Duplicate IPv6LLs on
> two links for a multihomed node. We document security potential issues
> and we should do so for other functions too. That is all I am stating.
> But that can be done out of the IETF.
Ok, and I agree. Thanks for making your position clear on that.
It has been pointed out before that LLMNR falls back on advertising
link-local addresses when nothing else is available and, with a proper
API, it also disambiguates the addresses on multihomed nodes. This is
far from perfect and most probably not suited for anything
mission-critical. It does help in the cases where no connectivity would
otherwise exist at all, however. For non-mission critical things,
consumer devices that are likely to find themselves in various ad-hoc
scenarios, having this fallback is a good thing.
I suppose my question was really aimed at finding out whether it would
be a good policy to configure such devices with an additional fallback
address, such as a non-routable PI, rather than directly falling back on
the link-local address.
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
