On 01/09/2015 17:20, Steven Barth wrote:
> Please consider the following thoughts in no particular: > > > * In each "zone" collisions need to be handled gracefully. > ** Also: there can be legitimate reasons for having devices with the same > (per-link) name in different parts of your network and if you > do service-discovery it can even be useful to know where the > device you found is located / what it is connected to (e.g. > printer.ethernet.office.home vs. printer.wifi.children.home) > > * We currently have 2 sources of names from devices: MDNS and DHCP(v6), > it is complicated to extend them from their natural per-link to a multi- > link scope. > ** MDNS does conflict resolution per link, extending it to multiple ones > is problematic (c.f. > draft-ietf-homenet-hybrid-proxy-zeroconf-00#appendix-C) > ** Implementing multi-link hostname conflict resolution in DHCP(v6) servers > sounds > very painful (besides there are enough people already that don't even > want > to have stateful DHCPv6 by default). > > * Having full-blown DNS-servers supporting zone transfers etc., on each and > every > router puts a huge additional burden on implementers, personally I don't > see having a bind9 or similar on every router as very realistic or > desirable. > For some schemes a single one per network might but enough, but that > would put > the burden on the user to know, care and buy / install the "one". > > * As noted by someone else in this thread, (most) users don't know about or > actively > use hostnames, so indiscriminately publishing all of them in a > top-level zone > and syncing them across the network might not be worth it. > ** Many auto-generated hostnames are very opaque (e.g. foobar-a18cb3) and > without > additional service discovery information are relatively useless to a > user, > in presence of service discovery information though the names become > less > relevant. > ** All that said, HNCP is already suitable to publish top-level hostnames > under .home, > for a selected set of devices. > > > Resolutions for some or all of these issues are of course welcome. Indeed, I know it's hard, but I believe more thought is required - there's some very smart people working on this and it's possible that there's a better solution that we didn't think of yet. Also, consider that the name collision issue ideally needs to be resolved for the externally published names. We really don't want to have topology dependent sub-domains appearing in the externally visible zone. Ray _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
