On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 1:54 PM, David Nicol <[email protected]> wrote: > the keys are too big for .txt records? > > On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 8:19 AM, Rob Townley <[email protected]> wrote: >> But it is difficult to replicate the public host file to each >> machine. That is why I would welcome a modified myDns or modified >> djbdns that holds the public key for each dynamically updated >> hostname. Hamachi must use a special DNS server to accomplish this. > - Show quoted text - > _______________________________________________ > tinc mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.tinc-vpn.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tinc >
Have not had much experience with txt record actual vs theoretical restrictions, but would think text records could work fine. Section 6.1 and 6.3 of the DNS Service Discovery draft below recommend no more than 300 bytes even though the previous paragraph says a txt record can be 65535 bytes - probably for performance reasons. The length of the txt record has to be maintained and sent as well. DNS Extensions may work or TSIG and other DNSSEC means. But all of us can think in terms of db columns and leveraging myDNS / mySQL replication.. http://files.dns-sd.org/draft-cheshire-dnsext-dns-sd.txt _______________________________________________ tinc mailing list [email protected] http://www.tinc-vpn.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tinc
