On Sep 10, 2012, at 05:34 , Ray Bellis <ray.bel...@nominet.org.uk> wrote: > > An interesting question has come up during the Arch Doc team's discussions > around naming and service discovery: > > "What in-home services actually require Unicast DNS lookup?" [*]
Really? How has the architecture team managed to overlook the obvious problem that homenets with interior routing domains comprising multiple networks cannot use either mDNS or LLMNR, which are confined to link-local multicast scope, without requiring name service proxies? As Brian notes, you could try to resurrect SLP, but-- really? I don't see that happening. Name service proxies also sound like a major undertaking compared to ordinary unicast DNS. What an exciting distributed database scheme with which consider securing its integrity... I can't wait. Alternatively, you could try to extend mDNS and/or LLMNR to support a wider multicast scope, then require routed homenets to implement some kind of multicast routing protocol. That sounds like a big specification effort and I'm not sanguine about the chances for adoption there. Finally, we could punt on the homenet routing problem, and just use mDNS+DNS-SD exclusively-- I'm sure I can think of at least one major player in the home networking space that would be quite happy to see such an outcome turn out to be the status quo, but last I checked, this working group didn't like that idea very much. So, um-- I guess the answer to the Arch Doc team's question should be, "NAME ALL THE THINGS IN DNS!!" What am I missing? -- james woodyatt <j...@apple.com> member of technical staff, core os networking _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
