Any difference in using 169.254.169.253 vs net_addr+2 for DNS?

0

A customer is looking into some DNS resolution issues. While reading AWS DNS documentation, I noticed that we could use either 169.254.169.253 or net_addr+2 as DNS server for EC2 instances.

This leads me to two questions:

  1. If you have a network path to the 169.254.169.253 address and your OS allows for its usage, is there any difference in using it instead of the net_addr+2 server?
  2. Specifically, would using 169.254.169.253 affect DNS resolution that factors in AZ locality (e.g., EFS DNS name for file systems)?
asked 7 years ago2100 views
1 Answer
0
Accepted Answer

Essentially using net_cidr_base+2 or 169.254..169.253 for DNS resolution with in VPC leads to the same recursive DNS resolution service. However 169.254.x.x address space (Link Local address space ) may be reserved or not allowed with in some OS (e,g Win server 2008 use case mentioned in AWS DNS document

AWS
mehrajk
answered 7 years ago

You are not logged in. Log in to post an answer.

A good answer clearly answers the question and provides constructive feedback and encourages professional growth in the question asker.

Guidelines for Answering Questions