From owner-freebsd-net@freebsd.org  Fri May 27 22:20:26 2016
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-net@freebsd.org>
Delivered-To: freebsd-net@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org
 [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1])
 by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 453C2B4D196;
 Fri, 27 May 2016 22:20:26 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from mark.tinka@seacom.mu)
Received: from the-host.seacom.mu (ge-0.ln-02-jnb.za.seacomnet.com
 [105.16.164.1])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
 (Client did not present a certificate)
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CE6BE199C;
 Fri, 27 May 2016 22:20:25 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from mark.tinka@seacom.mu)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=Mark-Tinkas-MacBook.local)
 by the-host.seacom.mu with esmtp (Exim 4.82_1-5b7a7c0-XX)
 (envelope-from <mark.tinka@seacom.mu>)
 id O7UVN2-0004II-GZ; Fri, 27 May 2016 23:57:02 +0200
Subject: Re: IPv6, ULAs and FreeBSD
To: Kevin Oberman <rkoberman@gmail.com>,
 "freebsd-net@freebsd.org" <freebsd-net@freebsd.org>, tinc@tinc-vpn.org,
 Mailinglists FreeBSD <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>
References: <20160519124446.GB2444@box-fra-01.niklaas.eu>
 <20160523034855.GA37797@box-fra-01.niklaas.eu>
 <20160524061707.GA77980@box-fra-01.niklaas.eu>
 <20160526193602.GF49239@box-fra-01.niklaas.eu>
 <CAN6yY1uEwttkd7iCBrjoFytUjUiNL1Ew-j7pm=-S=dY9HBXPYQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20160527070901.GA7911@box-fra-01.niklaas.eu>
 <CAN6yY1sNqSfjvV5j4vfmm=h=RCP2uiFRXaBzvdJGGV-gX_vjTA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu>
Message-ID: <bba7ed3e-bcb9-8dff-d8bb-31ca6f66c873@seacom.mu>
Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 23:57:02 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:45.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAN6yY1sNqSfjvV5j4vfmm=h=RCP2uiFRXaBzvdJGGV-gX_vjTA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD <freebsd-net.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-net>,
 <mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-net/>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-net@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net>,
 <mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 22:20:26 -0000



On 27/May/16 21:02, Kevin Oberman wrote:

> This is fine, but why not use link-local for the VPN links? That's the
> primary reason for them.

That's really not good advice.

I'd caution against using link-local addresses for any type of service.

Link-local addresses are used for host-to-host communications on the
same Layer 2 segment. Routers will not forward traffic with link-local
addresses.

Besides, link-local addresses are automatically created. They cannot be
guaranteed to be unique anymore than they can be guaranteed to be constant.

Mark.