RFC 4795 does not cover mdns. http://www.multicastdns.org/ covers stuff regarding mdns; it is far from ideal for a mesh network as well. Several of us are reading the ID at the moment. - Jim
On Thu, 2008-02-21 at 04:01 -0800, John Gilmore wrote: > > Can you explain how is this not mooted by considering mDNS, which XO's > > all run and listen for? > > No, I cannot; someone who understands mDNS should describe the > protocol and its implications. I could go off and read the RFC > eventually (is it spec'd by Informational RFC 4795? Or does the code > implement some different variation?). Please, if you know, be > specific in why you think it moots anything. Most things that listen > for multicast traffic only awaken if they can actually contribute to > the conversation. (If not, the protocol is broken.) > > Hmm, I've skimmed part half of the RFC. It indeed looks broken. It's > just like IPv4 ARP: every machine wakes up, looks at every query, and > 99% of the time throws them away and goes back to sleep. Stupid! > Requesters should be hashing the name it's looking up, into the > multicast address, so that servers who can't possibly match the name > don't have to even see the packet, nor awaken. No wonder it didn't > make it as an IETF draft or proposed standard. > > John > > _______________________________________________ > Devel mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel -- Jim Gettys One Laptop Per Child _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
