Hi Michael, Your note below strangely proves the counterpoint (ie. "debutante ball" for mDNS).
In your sample of 5, I am sure most (maybe all?) have some Apple product of sometype. If you actually had a packet sniffers in this study, you will find these devices happily advertising and finding services using mDNS without anyone typing in anything. Don On 8/9/12 7:35 AM, "Michael Thomas" <[email protected]> wrote: >On 08/09/2012 07:24 AM, Ted Lemon wrote: >> On Aug 9, 2012, at 10:17 AM, Kerry Lynn wrote: >>> That's exactly the point. mDNS isn't going away, so let's fix the >>>issues >>> and leverage it as a basic capability. >> >> NAT isn't going away either. Should we fix its issues and leverage >>its basic capability as well? >> >> (Seriously. Just because something isn't going away doesn't mean we >>should standardize on it.) >> > >It may not be going away, but it never had its debutante's ball either. > >I just did a thoroughly scientific and completely non-anecdotal study >by conducting a rigorous and peer reviewed survey asking my friends >on facebook what they do when they want to configure their home router. > >The results: > >o typed in 192.168.x.x -- 3 >o uses global name from vanity domain -- 1 >o suspicious that this might be a trick question -- 1 >o used a name that took advantage of mdns -- 0 > >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
