On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 2:46 AM, da...@lang.hm wrote:
I believe this is exactly what has been done over the last few years in the
DNS server/DNS cache software. they used to accept extra responses like you
are trying to make, but nowdays they don't.
As everyone pointed out, I was wrong about
On Wed, 22 Apr 2009, Martin Langhoff wrote:
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 2:46 AM, da...@lang.hm wrote:
I believe this is exactly what has been done over the last few years in the
DNS server/DNS cache software. they used to accept extra responses like you
are trying to make, but nowdays they
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 04:08:30PM +0200, Martin Langhoff wrote:
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 3:53 PM, Jonas Smedegaard d...@jones.dk wrote:
DNS-SD using unicast DNS seems reasonable to me too.
If we can do without the avahi gunk, and use it in a way
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 09:45:28AM -0400, p...@laptop.org wrote:
benjamin m. schwartz wrote:
Martin Langhoff wrote:
The short of it is that mdns/dns-sd make sense for a small,
underutilised network of peers. They assume that the network is a
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 2:05 AM, da...@lang.hm wrote:
my initial reaction to this is that it's going to look to the client exactly
the same as a bad guy trying to poison DNS by sending unasked for responses,
how do the clients tell the difference?
They can't. That's how DNS works. Lots of ink
martin wrote:
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 2:05 AM, da...@lang.hm wrote:
also note that this will require that you run some sort of
DNS cache on the
The standard dns resolver libs on linux (part of glibc?) caches
alright. All platforms I know cache things alright, and it's fairly
On Tue, 21 Apr 2009, Martin Langhoff wrote:
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 2:05 AM, da...@lang.hm wrote:
my initial reaction to this is that it's going to look to the client exactly
the same as a bad guy trying to poison DNS by sending unasked for responses,
how do the clients tell the difference?
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 3:53 PM, Jonas Smedegaard d...@jones.dk wrote:
DNS-SD using unicast DNS seems reasonable to me too.
If we can do without the avahi gunk, and use it in a way that is not
optimised for user driven browsing but for automated selection of
services, then it might work.
martin wrote:
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 3:53 PM, Jonas Smedegaard d...@jones.dk wrote:
DNS-SD using unicast DNS seems reasonable to me too.
If we can do without the avahi gunk, and use it in a way that is not
optimised for user driven browsing but for automated selection of
services,
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 6:56 PM, Jonas Smedegaard d...@jones.dk wrote:
I don't understand your question. Sounds like prefetching that isn't
part of dns (id you perhaps think of DHCP here?)
I don't have my well-worn DNS and BIND book with me right now but I
am positive that the server side can
jonas wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 09:45:28AM -0400, p...@laptop.org wrote:
benjamin m. schwartz wrote:
Martin Langhoff wrote:
The short of it is that mdns/dns-sd make sense for a small,
underutilised network of peers. They
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009, Martin Langhoff wrote:
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 6:56 PM, Jonas Smedegaard d...@jones.dk wrote:
I don't understand your question. Sounds like prefetching that isn't
part of dns (id you perhaps think of DHCP here?)
I don't have my well-worn DNS and BIND book with me right
12 matches
Mail list logo
