Re: stretch and DNS name resolution service for other devices on a LAN

[Andy Hawkins <andy@gently.org.uk>]

Hi,

In article <[🔎] 20180123144327.GA6815@alum>,
           David Wright<deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> wrote:
> This would all be a step in the wrong direction here. Point (2) was
> that using IPv6 over CAT5 avoids swamping the router. (Of course,
> that's already been snipped out of the thread.) If the DHCP server
> is down, then the router is down, and there are no links to anywhere
> except the CAT5 cable I've just connected.
>
> So why would I worry about whether the IPv4 had reconfigured itself
> when I've got a perfectly good dedicated IPv6 link between the two
> computers? And why should I be worrying about DHCP failures?—the
> only time my router is dead is during power cuts.

You were giving your reasoning for using IPv6 as being able to handle direct
cable connections between devices.

I was simply explaining that you don't need IPv6 to do this, as IPv4 will
probably fall back to 'link local' addresses if they receive no response
from a DHCP server (which they won't, as all they're connected to is some
other PC). 

Both devices will allocate themselves an address in the 'link local' range,
and these addresses can then be used for communicating between the devices.

Andy