Pars Mutaf wrote:
> I believe that dot-local DNS (also called multicast DNS) will be
> even more useful in the future. However, I suspect that there is
> a problem. For example, in WiMax, a cellular standard, nodes cannot
> L2 multicast.
As was learned with the abandoned attempt of NBMA, link protocols
not being capable of broadcast is useless.
> Even if they could, L2 multicast would wake up every
> dormant host.
That's fine as long as L2 broadcast is infrequent.
Note that L2 broadcast is as costly as L2 multicast.
So, don't bother to say "multicast", when broadcast is harmful which
is the case of CATENET, which is partly why IPv6 failed. IP over 1394
failed, too, because of purposeless attempt to avoid broadcast.
> 1. Let the responder's DNS name be "johnsmith.local". The responder
> configures a name-based link-local IPv6 address:
>
> link-local subnet prefix | 64bithash("johnsmith.local")
And the address is a multicast address joined by all the hosts with
64bithash("johnsmith.local")=64bithash(DNS name).
Masataka Ohta
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
