http://www.dyndns.com/support/kb/record_types_supported_in_custom_dns_standard_interface.html
On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 2:34 PM, Rob Townley <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > -- "Nah, we straight." _______________________________________________ tinc mailing list [email protected] http://www.tinc-vpn.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tinc
