On Mon, Aug 06, 2012 at 02:51:48PM -0400, Ted Lemon wrote: > The problem is that you are assuming (a) that only geeks will ever want > remotely-addressable networks (and hence, we don't need to specify a > mechanism for automatically setting that up, because they can do it > manually),
Not at all -- lots of non-geeks buy domain names, and non-geeks can also get delegated subdomains from their ISP's. Making it easy for them to set up is a UI problem, and not a very hard one. You can't use .<ULA> to reach a remote device anyway. > and (b) that no network will ever go from being locally-addressed to > globally-addressed. Not really. If you acquire a globally-resolvable domain name, then your printer could detect the fact and start advertising the name printername.domain.com alongside printername.myhouse.local; your laptop could then cache the new name, note that it's a FQDN, and begin showing it to you in a list of available printers when you're away from home. > Oh, and (c) that a person with a local-only homenet will never take their > laptop or cell phone to someone else's house where a naming scheme > conflict happens to exist, and accidentally tweak something because of > the clash. I think this concern is fairly minimal, and could be addressed by noting that the router MAC address has changed and popping up a warning dialog. > breaks badly in some cases when you treat it as if it is. So state is, > IMHO, a better solution even in the local-only situation, because you're > owning the fact that you have state, and you have to go to the trouble to > get it right. Explain what you mean by "state" here please? I'm not sure I'm following you. -- Evan Hunt -- [email protected] Internet Systems Consortium, Inc. _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
