From owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Jul 27 17:09:45 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AD0C6D48 for ; Sun, 27 Jul 2014 17:09:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org (kenobi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::16:76]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 94A832E4D for ; Sun, 27 Jul 2014 17:09:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bugs.freebsd.org ([127.0.1.118]) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.14.8/8.14.8) with ESMTP id s6RH9jnn088375 for ; Sun, 27 Jul 2014 17:09:45 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 192169] resolver does not append interface ID to link-local IPV6 records Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2014 17:09:45 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: AssignedTo X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: Base System X-Bugzilla-Component: bin X-Bugzilla-Version: 10.0-STABLE X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: Affects Some People X-Bugzilla-Who: bz@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Status: Needs Triage X-Bugzilla-Priority: --- X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bugzilla-URL: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: Bug reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2014 17:09:45 -0000 https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192169 --- Comment #3 from Bjoern A. Zeeb --- Yeah, because I think what you are expecting is only defined for LLMNR (Link-Local Multicast Name Resolution) while for normal DNS one should never add link-local addresses, neither for forward no reverse (See 2.1 in RFC 4472). Thus I am asking if you have ideas of latest standardisation to help us with this request (as in "did things change")? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.