On 02/26/2013 01:29 PM, Ted Lemon wrote: > >> May I introduce a third option? mDNS for the local net, DNS to glue >> the multiple segments. That way, there's no additional code needed >> on the clients, no extensions needed for DNS, and just some >> software on the boxes linking the different network segments. > > I think that's what the mdns guys are talking about doing.
My understanding was that they were going to extend mDNS to work on multiple segments, rather than gluing mDNS "islands" with DNS... but I have not really followed the discussions in the mdnsext. > I think > it's a bad idea. It doesn't solve the multihoming problem; it's > hard to figure out what problem it _does_ solve that can't be solved > better using existing technology. Is there a requirements list for what naming/service discovery should achive? i.e., are those requirements documented? -- because that would be step #1 here. (yes, there are general requirements in the homenet charter, but was wondering if something had been written for naming and service discovery). Thanks, -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: [email protected] PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492 _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
