Hi, > On 26 Mar 2015, at 16:53, Roman Mamedov <[email protected]> wrote: > > Signed PGP part > On Thu, 26 Mar 2015 14:26:14 +0100 > Philip Homburg <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Nothing really surprising about this. There is simply no IPv6 > > > offered by the ISP, and many ISPs still do not begin to deploy IPv6 > > > and only promise (if even that) for months and years. > > > > But is that a good reason for a CPE to start announcing IPv6 prefixes? > > Sure, why not. Nobody is surprised when a CPE with no Internet uplinks > configured or operating still provides DHCPv4 server to the LAN, giving out > RFC-1918 IPs. > > > > And imagine some future IPv6-only client device. With ULA it could > > > access local services of the user's LAN (for example files shared > > > from a NAS), if there is no need for it to access anything on the > > > Internet. Trying to use LLs for this and lugging around > > > "%interface" everywhere is not an acceptable answer. > > > > Link local was supposed to solve the 'dentist office' problem where > > there is no router. > > They really don't. Barely any (if any at all) client software supports > explicitly specifying the interface identifier along with the IP or hostname, > or does so in a consistent manner. LL IPs are not usable in any form by the > user, aside from pinging from the command line (and even then, it's bothersome > to not forget to specify the interface all the time).
Indeed. > > > Even if there's some mDNS in operation, the proverbial dentist still can't be > expected to be typing "http://printer.local%eth0/"; into their web browser > (assuming that would have been supported in the first place…) With the work in the IETF dnssd WG, such service discovery may happen over a wider scope (multi-link), see https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dnssd-hybrid-00 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dnssd-hybrid-00>. But the address advertised would then be greater scope too. Tim
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
