ietf-request,您好！
======= 2005-09-02 00:10:50 您在来信中写道：=======
>Send Ietf mailing list submissions to
> [email protected]
>
>To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>You can reach the person managing the list at
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>than "Re: Contents of Ietf digest..."
>
>
>Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)'
> to Proposed Standard (Tony Finch)
> 2. Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)'
> to Proposed Standard (Paul Vixie)
> 3. Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)'
> to Proposed Standard (Stephane Bortzmeyer)
> 4. Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)'
> to Proposed Standard (Paul Vixie)
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Message: 1
>Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 14:55:17 +0100
>From: Tony Finch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)'
> to Proposed Standard
>To: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Cc: Keith Moore <[email protected]>, IETF General Discussion Mailing
> List <[email protected]>
>Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
>
>On Thu, 1 Sep 2005, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
>>
>> I don't understand how you can be in favor of LLMNR while at the same time
>> being opposed to confusion between local and global ("DNS") names. In theory,
>> I suppose it's possible that the information available over LLMNR and the
>> information available from the DNS are 100% consistent.
>
>Is LLMNR supposed to work with RFC 3927 IPv4 link-local address
>autoconfiguration? In which case it's also theoretically impossible for
>LLMNR to be consistent with the DNS. (Consistency would require dynamic
>DNS updates, and if they work your DHCP server should also be working, in
>which case you won't have an RFC 3927 address.)
>
>Tony.
>--
>f.a.n.finch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://dotat.at/
>BISCAY: WEST 5 OR 6 BECOMING VARIABLE 3 OR 4. SHOWERS AT FIRST. MODERATE OR
>GOOD.
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 2
>Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 14:58:17 +0000
>From: Paul Vixie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)'
> to Proposed Standard
>To: Jeroen Massar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Cc: Christian Huitema <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Stuart Cheshire
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [email protected], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
># That said, if people want to limit the effect of these 'bogus' queries
># onto the root servers I suggest that ISP's join into the AS112 project.
># Also it would maybe be an idea for AS112 to add .local there?
>
>yes, but only when some rfc reserves .local the way rfc1918 reserves the
>10.in-addr.arpa and other names handled by AS112. (IANA will, properly,
>refuse to add a .LOCAL NS RR pointing at AS112 or anywhere else until IETF
>reserves this name.)
>
># PS: Who ever named the LLMNR draft 'mdns' isn't that completely
># confusing for people looking up the mDNS draft, that is the protocol
># that Stuart made? :)
>
>yes.
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 3
>Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 17:09:54 +0200
>From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)'
> to Proposed Standard
>To: [email protected], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
>On Thu, Sep 01, 2005 at 02:58:17PM +0000,
> Paul Vixie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> a message of 19 lines which said:
>
>> yes, but only when some rfc reserves .local the way rfc1918 reserves
>> the 10.in-addr.arpa and other names handled by AS112. (IANA will,
>> properly, refuse to add a .LOCAL NS RR pointing at AS112 or anywhere
>> else until IETF reserves this name.)
>
>In that direction (IANA waiting for IETF), I understand.
>
>But what about the other direction? When IETF reserves a name, is it
>always null-routed to AS112? It does not seem so, ".example" (RFC
>2606), for instance, is not "delegated".
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 4
>Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 15:38:48 +0000
>From: Paul Vixie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)'
> to Proposed Standard
>To: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Cc: [email protected], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
># But what about the other direction? When IETF reserves a name, is it
># always null-routed to AS112? It does not seem so, ".example" (RFC
># 2606), for instance, is not "delegated".
>
>if as112 is asked, my bet is, as112 will cooperate.
>
>for .example, as112 wasn't asked. (yet?)
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>Ietf mailing list
>[email protected]
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>
>
>End of Ietf Digest, Vol 17, Issue 4
>***********************************
>
>.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
致
礼！
史敦发
010-62237300-1227
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
2005-09-04
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
