On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 04:30:17PM +0200, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
> >REQ5: a Homenet implementation of Babel MUST use metrics that are of
> >a similar magnitude to the values suggested in Appendix A of
> >RFC 6126bis.
>
> > "MUST" and "similar magnitude" are not a great pairing.
>
> I think the local ULA should be used for all intra-ULA connections. We had a
> debate about this about four years ago, and apparently the text in the HNCP
> spec reflects the outcome of that discussion, but I think we understand the
> problem better now and we should fix this.
Agreed.
On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 5:42 AM, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
> > In order for services to be discoverable on the homenet, they have to
> > publish their contact info on the homenet. The protocol that everyone
> > uses for this is DNSSD. This is how you find your printer when you want
> > to print
I've re-read Section 6.5 of 7788, and it looks like I was wrong. Sorry,
I should not be writing technical mails in the middle of the night.
As far as I can tell from the wording of 6.5:
- creating ULA is SHOULD if there's no global IPv6, MUST NOT otherwise;
- creating private IPv4 is MAY if
> In order for services to be discoverable on the homenet, they have to
> publish their contact info on the homenet. The protocol that everyone
> uses for this is DNSSD. This is how you find your printer when you want
> to print to it. Nobody uses the ad-hoc DynDNS protocol for this.
I am not
> I am not speaking about discovery within the Homenet. I am speaking about
> exporting names into the global DNS, which is what Daniel's draft is
> about.
> Yes, but the problem is that you are treating this as if these are two
> separate problems, but they are not.
These are two
(with no hats...)
On 19/07/18 10:42, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
>> Also, think of the privacy implications if all of the services on the
>> homenet had to be discovered from a shared zone like dyndns.org.
> Quite the opposite. In the trivial update protocol, the update is
> end-to-end,
Juliusz Chroboczek writes:
> And it's literally four lines of shell:
>
> while true; do
> wget --post-data 'name=gameserver.myhome.net=topsecret' \
> https://dyndns.example.com
> sleep $((24 * 3600))
> done
How does that get both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses
> On the other hand same thing using nsupdate (using TSIG and dynamic
> dns) is one command line + input file for nsupdate:
Cool.
Whichever end-to-end (host to DNS provider with no intermediate proxying)
encrypted and authentified protocol you pick, I'm with you.
-- Juliusz
One way to automate this would be using mud.
On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 9:28 AM, Stephen Farrell
wrote:
>
> (with no hats...)
>
> On 19/07/18 10:42, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
>
> >> Also, think of the privacy implications if all of the services on the
> >> homenet had to be discovered from a
> On 19 Jul 2018, at 11:58 pm, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
>
>
>> On 19 Jul 2018, at 11:30 pm, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
>>
>>> I am not speaking about discovery within the Homenet. I am speaking about
>>> exporting names into the global DNS, which is what Daniel's draft is
>>> about.
>>
>> And it's literally four lines of shell:
> vs
> while true; do
> (omitted for brevity)
You're doing end-to-end dynamic update over DNS, which is fine with me.
The exact transport we end up using doesn't matter that much.
You're not doing the proxying through a hidden master mandated by
> On 19 Jul 2018, at 11:30 pm, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
>
>>I am not speaking about discovery within the Homenet. I am speaking about
>>exporting names into the global DNS, which is what Daniel's draft is
>>about.
>
>> Yes, but the problem is that you are treating this as if
> One way to automate this would be using mud.
A bright light shines from the heavens, bathing you in its warm glow. An
enormous, white temple stands to the north, taking most of your view.
In order to enter the Temple of Homenet Naming, you must travel up the
large staircase that stands in
The provisioning process for front end naming delegation we’re thinking of
includes the provisioning of the domain name itself at the registry, and the
setup on the home gateway itself and registration with an external secondary
anycast for global name resolution. The gateway would have an
15 matches
Mail list logo
