Subject: What about PTR queries in draft-ietf-dnsext-mdns-12.txt?

From: Markku Savela <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 16:45:40 +0200

I assume that if you end up doing a address (fe80::1) to name query
for IPv6, you end up sending a query to IPv6 multicast address
generated from the hash of

   "1.0.0. ... 0.0.8.e.f.ip6.int"

and because the hash is taken from the first label, this will be MD5
from "1"? (basicly only 16 different hashes are possible).

IPv4 side you have for example "1.2.254.169.in-addr.arpa".

Am I right assuming the "resolvers" on nodes have to deal also with
these for link local name resolution?

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>

---

From: Erik Nordmark <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 14:32:21 +0100 (CET)

> Currently, the draft doesn't state what addresses an LLMNR responder will
> include in its A/AAAA RR query response. Are you suggesting that it should
> respond *only* with a linklocal address?

I'm suggesting that we don't know the answer to that question yet.
And the draft, by saying that the appicability is likely to be
limited to adhoc networks, says that we do know the answer to the question.

So leaving the applicability a bit more open-ended might be useful.

Note that ideally we'd use global addresses for all application use,
since limited scope addresses can cause problems for applications.
But the thing I don't know is whether this will always be sufficient
or whether there will be cases where it makes sense to use LLMNR to
get a link-local address back even in cases when the network is
connected to the Internet.

  Erik