Ted Lemon <mailto:[email protected]>
11 May 2016 20:03
DNS update is pretty simple. Any problem with using that?
Not with the update mechanism itself
I think you may be slightly conclusing "authoritative" and "primary."
There is no need to elect authoritative servers--just make them
secondary to the elected primary. You can't have two primaries with
stock DNS--that's probably the biggest fly in the ointment.
Exactly.
The challenge is the Homenet requirement to support network segmentation
and remerging.
We have multiple independent address spaces (ULA per router + GUA per
provider), so why not multiple namespaces?
If a new router is added, a new ULA is added, together with associated
namespace, and infra.
If a router is removed or dies, the ULA prefix expires, together with
associated namespace and infra.
If a new ISP uplink is added, a new GUA is added, together with
associated (upstream) (globally resolvable) namespace and infra.
If an ISP is removed or dies, the GUA expires, together with associated
namespace and infra.
Then the namespace infra/ update server could be tightly bound to the
device that delegates/creates it (either the homenet router, homenet
border router, or the ISP infra)
I know people don't like DNS search lists, but they do work, and are
widely supported. Or else a recursive resolver running on the local
homenet router could handle the search work for the end hosts.
I also realize this creates a new challenge of how to update all of
these various namespaces.
The reason to have a hybrid proxy is because we have to support
existing devices. Clearly it's not the right long-term solution, but
we can't force vendors to implement something new if they don't want to.
--
regards,
RayH
<https://www.postbox-inc.com/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=siglink&utm_campaign=reach>
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
