On 10 Mar 2012, at 23:53, 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.
Indeed; the arch text is capturing those goals, so some discussion and definition of those is very welcome. Tim > > 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 _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
