On 19 Oct 2012, at 17:55, Michael Thomas <[email protected]> wrote: > On 10/19/2012 09:36 AM, Tim Chown wrote: >> One item where there seemed to be a lack of a firm conclusion (despite some >> firm statements each way) was the question of using a single global name >> space or separate internal and external name spaces. The current text >> essentially says: >> * The default is to use an ISP-provided domain in the homenet, but with the >> user able to use an independent domain name instead if preferred. >> * If no global domain is available, the homenet uses either a ULQDN >> (preferred) or ALQDN, and these are scoped to the local homenet (i.e. the >> homenet can only be reached remotely if using a global domain). > > If you get an ISP's name couldn't you always with or without their cooperation > generate names of the form host.<uniquestring>.isp.net? Where <uniquestring> > is either statistically unique (cf ULA's), or is human-significant and unique > (eg, > host.casasanchez.customers.isp.net).
I would assume here that the name the ISP delegates includes such a unique string, e.g. cust1234.someisp.net. Maybe for an extra fee they'll let you pick a unique string to replace 'cust1234'. Personally (and I note at IETF85 we found that half the homenet attendees had 110+ domains each!) I believe it's important to allow the homenet to use an ISP-independent domain name as simply as possible. > Doing so would potentially take the "otherness" of .local away, and make the > human factors issue less stark. Also: if we end up with a repository in the > CPE, say, it makes transitions between vanity domains, hosted domain (ala > ISP or some cloud service), and local/isolated domains easier it seems to me. Certainly keeping as much of this as simple as possible for the homenet user, while not precluding more advanced options, is important. tim _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
