On 03/10/2012 06:53 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Cutting to the chase (and this answers Don too):
>
>> There may be good reasons to consider SLP, but I'd
>> like to see how these line up against the home net goals.
> Exactly. It's perfectly fine by me if SLP is not the right
> answer for future homenets, but this should be a goal-based
> decision, not based on what happens to be deployed on
> single-subnet homenets today.
I agree Brian.
My concern is just figuring out if there are any practical issues in
already deployed discovery protocols (e.g. mDNS, uPnP) or wiggling
things we don't know about in a corner that will stand in the way of
making *real* home *networks*, that are actually networks, rather than
our current bridged disasters that people call home routers, but really
aren't...
When there were discussions about routing versus bridging in homenet
early on, there was quite a bit of scepticism that routing can be made
to work without unforseen practical problems: we're trying to answer
that along the way in our CeroWrt work. So far, thinks look ok. But I
believe first all in "running code", much more than hand-waving....
- Jim
>
> Regards
> Brian
>
> On 2012-03-11 11:02, Kerry Lynn wrote:
>> On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 10:58 AM, Brian E Carpenter
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On 2012-03-10 08:42, Paul Duffy wrote:
>>>> On 3/9/2012 1:55 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>>>> On 2012-03-10 05:00, Jim Gettys wrote:
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> I was just observing comments I came across in code being used for
>>>>>> printer discovery.
>>>>> Why would we consider anything other than SLP for service discovery?
>>>> Its my understanding that mDNS/DNS-SD and UPnP SDDP have far more
>>>> traction in the consumer space than SLP.
>>>>
>>>> Please do correct if I'm wrong.
>>> Aren't we trying to influence the future rather than document the
>>> past?
>>>
>> Brian,
>>
>> I'm not sure of your point; mDNS and DNS-SD are Standards Track
>> drafts currently in the RFC-Editor queue and there are tens of millions
>> of deployed mDNS responders. If SLP is running in my home, I'm
>> not aware of it.
>>
>>> We need a name-based service discovery solution. That's also a
>>> requirement emerging from 6renum. I think we should decide what's
>>> the best recommendation; it may end up being DNS-based, but this
>>> is what SLP was designed for, so IMHO it should be considered.
>>>
>> Just as homenet has "Largest Possible Subnets", "Fewest Topology
>> Assumptions", and "Self Organizing" principles, perhaps we should
>> also consider "Fewest Protocols" as well. To my mind, using DNS for
>> both service discovery and name resolution has many advantages.
>> These are documented in the above mentioned drafts, but I would
>> just point out three: simple DNS-based discovery is trivial to add to
>> an existing resolver, mDNS has been demonstrated in constrained
>> environments (e.g. it places limits on name length and character
>> set), and it is based on a well-understood (and well-supported)
>> protocol. There may be good reasons to consider SLP, but I'd
>> like to see how these line up against the home net goals.
>>
>> I will add that I've co-authored a draft that considers extending mDNS
>> to site scope and would like to receive any comments people have:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-lynn-homenet-site-mdns/
>>
>> Thanks, -K-
>>
>>> This is clearly *not* what SNMP was designed for.
>>>
>>> Brian
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> homenet mailing list
>>> [email protected]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
