On 06/29/2012 12:18 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
On 06/29/2012 11:53 AM, Don Sturek wrote:
Hi Michael,
The difficulty with your proposal is that the homenet address space
is now
connected to the wider internet.
It wasn't a proposal of a solution, so much as plea to not make my
life more difficult trying to keep track of the difference between
"in" and "out" naming systems. We've done a pretty good job of
teaching the world about fqdn's to the point that seeing unqualified
names makes me wonder what they are and whether they even refer
to anything Internet-like. And of course, I want to have a flip of
the switch if I decide to make them Internet-wide visible.
Services in the home must be discoverable without any internet
connectivity.
By discoverable, I assume that you mean that my home name translation
still needs to work when I don't have connectivity. That seems like a
perfectly reasonable requirement too.
Mike
Don
On 6/29/12 11:27 AM, "Michael Thomas" <[email protected]> wrote:
On 06/29/2012 08:34 AM, Ralph Droms wrote:
a) Homenet name-service MUST NOT interfere with Internet name-service
"Internet name-service"? Do you mean "DNS"? "Co-exist" might be a
better word. Users want a single interface into naming and don't
want to have to differentiate between "naming stuff on my local
network"
and "naming stuff in the Internet". Ted Lemon raised this issue much
more eloquently during the WG meeting.
I'll add my first bullet here, rephrased a little:
a.1) Relative name resolution: some naming convention that allows name
resolution while mitigating the need to know an absolute location
in the
Internet name-service
b) Homenet name-service MUST NOT be in Internet name space.
How are things in the home identified from outside the homenet?
Maybe I can add some fuel to Olafur's fire. I'd like to say that the
homenet name service MUST be DNS.
This may sound like heresy, but here's my reason: I want the ability
to transition from a private name space to a public name space with
minimal fuss. I don't want a different naming mechanism that has
its own oddities just because I can't think up a clever domain name
for my home net that goes into the global DNS when I'm forced to
install my router. When I'm finally inspired, I want to be able to make
that transition and then worry about the split horizon implications
(if I even get around to caring about such a thing).
So perhaps, we can make use of statistically unique naming to keep
things from bumping into one another, etc... this is sort of off the
cuff,
but the real point is not having to transmogrify one naming scheme into
another. Yuck.
Seems like a smart move
Mike
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
--
Benjamin Kerensa
http://benjaminkerensa.com
"I am what I am because of who we all are" - Ubuntu
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
