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. > 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). -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
