benjamin m. schwartz wrote: > Martin Langhoff wrote: > > The short of it is that mdns/dns-sd make sense for a small, > > underutilised network of peers. They assume that the network is a > > cheap resource, that broadcast messages are cheap, and that there is > > no coordinating server. > > mDNS assumes all of the above things. DNS-SD does not. DNS-SD is > perfectly happy to work on a standard DNS server. From the spec > > """ > This document proposes no change to the structure of DNS messages, > and no new operation codes, response codes, resource record types, > or any other new DNS protocol values. This document simply specifies > a convention for how existing resource record types can be named and > structured to facilitate service discovery. > """ > (http://files.dns-sd.org/draft-cheshire-dnsext-dns-sd.txt)
the last i looked at (and actually used) dns-sd to solve the discovery problem, it seemed that dns-sd development had stalled. (and i haven't had a reason to look since.) i believe we used code from Sun, which was all i could find at the time, and it wasn't what you'd call production ready. on the other hand, we were using it in a somewhat non-standard way -- in fact, we switched to mdns soon after because it fit our deployment model better, since we didn't really have a central server. the XS model may be a better fit. (this was all 3 or 4 years ago, btw.) paul =--------------------- paul fox, p...@laptop.org _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel