[dns-operations] Link-local IP addresses for a resolver?

[Florian Weimer]

* Mark Andrews:

>> On 25 Sep 2019, at 6:13 am, John Levine <johnl at taugh.com> wrote:
>> 
>> In article <alpine.DEB.2.20.1909242008320.23255 at grey.csi.cam.ac.uk> you write:
>>> Florian Weimer <fw at deneb.enyo.de> 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.