On Thu, 2007-01-11 at 15:55 +0100, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > On Thu, Jan 11, 2007 at 03:30:26PM +0100, > Pars Mutaf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote > a message of 81 lines which said: > > > I used the term .local with no particular reason. If recent advances > > showed that it is unnecessary. > > Not unecessary: bad. If I'm correct, it is bad because everyone would > have a ".local" and merging of two organizations would become a > nightmare. It is quite easy and cheap to get a real domain name so > every organization, even non connected, should use one.
Thanks for the clarification. > > I'm not even sure if my proposal needs to be "local". I can also > > reach other subnets in theory > > The domain name in use has nothing to do with the fact that the > protocol is routable or single-link. Different layers. > > > But I still don't see why I would send a multicast query if I know > > the destination's unicast address. Sending the DNS query directly to > > the destination may be useful. > > Again, *read* draft-ietf-dnsext-mdns-47.txt, the use of unicast is > clearly possible (section 2.4). But it is still multicast DNS? pars -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
