Pars Mutaf writes: > My answer is that installing DNS in a router is going to far.
Once you step off the cliff of altering the protocols to suit the limitations, it's probably hard to know where to stop. :-> > > So, the proposal is that if the hash collides for different names, > > then "johnsmith.local" must rename himself, right? > > Right. Please let me know if you see a problem with this. I don't necessarily; I was just trying to clarify the proposal. Fortunately, he can call himself "jacksmith.local" with no loss of information. The general multicast issue, though, seems like a hazardous one. If it's a walled garden (where users just "can't" send multicast), then you're obviously free to do anything you like. You don't even need to use IP. If it's not such a deployment, then it seems to me that outlawing multicast is a near impossible task and trying to modify protocols to avoid it is a losing proposition. -- James Carlson, Solaris Networking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677 -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
