On 08/28/2015 08:56 AM, Steven Barth wrote:
On 08/28/2015 04:42 AM, Steven Barth wrote:
Furthermore, as Markus noted, the IETF has MDNS and stateful DHCPv6 (or rather
RFC 4704) in standards track and these protocols are widely supported by all
kinds
of clients already.
So is plain old DNS.
Then tell me how clients register their names using "plain old DNS" and how
that is already widely deployed in client OSs.
when there will manifestly be host changes to incorporate the brand new world
of in-home naming.
There is nothing brand new here, it worked on single links for years. In my non-HNCP
network I can type: http://printer.lan or even just http://printer to reach my HP
printer, because it told my router that its hostname is "printer" when it got
the DHCP lease and my router populates the name into the DNS cache that all clients are
using. Similarly I can use http://printer.local and my PC finds the printer purely using
MDNS without any router intervention or I can even enumerate it on the local link using
DNS-SD without knowing its hostname and without router intervention.
You're making my point rather elegantly: you know this. The unwashed
masses? Not so much.
I just noticed that my latest version of Android has a new feature to
wirelessly cast my screen onto a nearby screen.
Currently even with brand new TV's at both home and work, it finds
nothing. I actually have no idea whether this is a
config thing, lack of appropriate software, or maybe a combination of
both. *I* can (and may) research why that is.
The rest of humanity? "It doesn't work".
Part of this is immaturity of protocols, part of it is lack of support
altogether, and in all cases, it's a general inadequacy
of how well this is integrated together in the OS and UI's. Which is to
say, that hosts are most definitely going to have
to update software to get the rest of humanity using these new devices.
Which is why I object to saying that there's a sledge hammer requirement
that we cannot place a requirement on
new host software for naming. And that's true regardless of what
protocol technologies we end up specifying --
even the ones I don't favor. This isn't about me, it's about needlessly
constraining the problem space.
Mike
PS: for anybody who brings up "BUT APPLE ALREADY!!!" you make my point.
The rest don't and would need to change,
and hopefully not to their proprietary world.
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
