on 2005-08-31 05:40 Jeffrey Hutzelman said the following:
>
> On Tuesday, August 30, 2005 15:55:56 -0700 Ned Freed
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> IMO this needs major work even before being approved as experimental. The
>> overlapped namespace approach in particular seems hugely problematic and
>> IMO needs to be replaced.
>
> I've only read this document briefly, but based on what I've seen and on
> the descriptions and explanations in the current discussion, I have to
> agree. The overlapped namespace approach has significant problems, which
> have been mentioned here. It generates load in the form of additional
> queries on caching servers and on the global DNS roots for names those
> servers are never expected to be able to resolve, and in the form of
> multicast traffic on the local link for potentially every failed query
> against the global DNS.
>
>
> It also creates massive ambiguities in the namespace, by allowing any host
> on the local link to claim any global DNS name which happens not to resolve
> at the moment (even if due to a temporary failure). This means that names
> which are intended to be part of the global DNS namespace may resolve
> differently depending on one's location, or what hosts might be responding
> to LLMNR requests on the local network.
>
> This is a problem so egregious that the IAB wrote a document about it
> (RFC2826). While the majority of that document pertains specifically to
> recurring "alternate root" proposals, much of it applies equally well here
> -- "alternate roots" are a bad idea because they split what needs to be a
> single global namespace into several alternate namespaces. The use of the
> overlapped-namespace approach with LLMNR does the same thing, only instead
> of creating a few alternate roots, it creates millions.
Good summaries, good points.
I do not believe the LLMNR specification should be published in
its current form; the namespace confluence is extremely bothersome,
and should not be accepted even for publication as an experimental
RFC.
Even if the namespace confluence problem is corrected, it seems
more appropriate - given the deployment of mDNS - to publish both
mDNS and LLMNR as experimental RFCs.
Henrik.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
