On 02/27/2013 12:21 PM, Ray Hunter wrote:
Michael Thomas wrote:
On 02/27/2013 12:46 AM, Ray Hunter wrote:
[Ole] does a name really have any meaning without a service
associated with it?
[Ray] URLs have meaning (rfc1738). It's going to be tough to know
when your
browser (connecting from off-net) can cache
http://myphone.building1.isp1.com or not. Cookie handling too (keyed on
URL, which is hard linked to hostname, which will change when the phone
moves to http://myphone.building2.isp1.com).
[Mike] Allow me to poke at that assumption: why should we expect that
the name (assuming there's only one, which is a bad assumption IMO),
changes instead of the address record(s)? If I travel around with my
toothbrush, shouldn't I expect it to remain named
"mikestoothbrush.mtcc.com"?
Perhaps it may update a local dns to
"mikestoothbrush.1027.holidayinn.com"
too, but if I really want to replenish its digital toothpaste, I'd almost
certainly surf to https://mikestoothbrush.mtcc.com to make certain I'm
not being tricked into resupplying ot.1027.holidayinn.com's toothbrush.
[Ray] Mike, your quoting in the above message was rather strange, so
I've tried to re clarify who wrote what.
[Ray] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-cheshire-mdnsext-hybrid-01 is
proposing that both the domain name and the IPv6 address change as nodes
move across subnets within homenet AFAICS.
[Ray] Changing domain names (and thus URL) when a device moves within
homenet is bad IMHO.
Let me understand: mdnsext-hybrid says that my domain name
changes as I move across subnets, and you think that's bad. If
so, I agree. At least to the extent that I don't really care very
much what a local (m)DNS wants to name my device so long as
the device updates its address records for my names as I move.
.local and its kin are a horrible hack that don't meet the requirements
of a mobile world.
Mike
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
