Mark Tinka [2016-05-27 23:57 +0200] :
> 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.
Thanks for repeating that. That's how I understood it as a novice too.
:-) And that's why I thought I should not go for them. Because I don't
have many GUAs available, I thought I should go for ULAs then.
Niklaas
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<http://www.tinc-vpn.org/pipermail/tinc/attachments/20160528/1fe1cb41/attachment.sig>
