Re: Sense of the WG: mDNS configuration?
Erik Guttman <Erik.Guttman@Sun.COM> Thu, 30 August 2001 23:13 UTC
Received: from psg.com (exim@psg.com [147.28.0.62]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA29999 for <dnsext-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 19:13:13 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from lserv by psg.com with local (Exim 3.33 #1) id 15caXD-0005l2-00 for namedroppers-data@psg.com; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 15:43:39 -0700
Received: from ip-172-63.meeting.hinet.net ([210.61.172.63] helo=roam.psg.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 15caXC-0005kw-00 for namedroppers@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 15:43:38 -0700
Received: from randy by roam.psg.com with local (Exim 3.33 #1) id 15caXA-0000wc-00 for namedroppers@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 06:43:36 +0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 12:27:46 +0200
From: Erik Guttman <Erik.Guttman@Sun.COM>
Subject: Re: Sense of the WG: mDNS configuration?
To: Bernard Aboba <aboba@internaut.com>
Cc: namedroppers@psg.com
Message-ID: <Roam.SIMC.2.0.6.999167266.21937.erikg@ehdb03-home.germany>
Sender: owner-namedroppers@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Bernard, Thanks for bringing this topic to the list. I've been on vacation - sorry for the delay in responding. On Aug 19, Bernard wrote: > At IETF 51, we had a discussion relating to configuration of mDNS. A > number of alternatives were discussed, including: > > Domain Searchlist (draft-aboba-dhc-domsearch-05.txt) > mDNS enable (draft-guttman-dhc-mdns-enable-01.txt) > Name Service Searchlist (RFC 2937) > > Note that each of these alternative approaches allows for local > configuration, in addition to control via a DHCP option. I hadn't considered RFC 2937. The mDNS enable option could be handled by assigning additional values for mDNS name resolution. Values corresponding to different multicast scopes could be used, exactly as described in draft-guttman-dhc-mdns-enable-01.txt. We could just update RFC 2937 with the new info instead of creating a new option. On Aug 19 Itojin wrote: > i vote for domain searchlist. there are environments without DHCP > server, like IPv6 stateless address autoconf > (RFC2937 and guttman-dhc-mbdns-enable both assumes that a DHCP > server is there). Thanks for your comment. I understand your concern that we want to allow mDNS in the case when there is no DHCP server. If no DNS configuration exists - this is the zeroconf case. There has been no objection to using mDNS in this case. Where there have been objections is the case where you have DNS configuration and you *still* use mDNS. In this case, the consensus on the namedroppers mailing list was to explicitely enable mDNS behavior (the default being NOT to use mDNS, as it is today :-). This can be done using a DHC option, or in the absence of DHC, static (non-default) configuration. The problems with the domain search list are serious: 1. It creates a binding between certain names and DNS transport protocols. Here the proposal is 'local.arpa' means use IPv4 LINKLOCAL multicast, sending with TTL=255, rejecting received if TTL != 255, hosts must be prepared to receive multiple replies, etc etc. In the future, if we define use of multicast DNS for admin local scope for IPv4, IPv6 multicast scopes, with different rules than those in draft-ietf-dnsext-mdns, then we need NEW NAMES for the search list! 2. The search list mechanism implies that names resolved by mdns are qualified by the search list name. In draft-ietf-dnsext-mdns I can only resolve names ending in 'local.arpa'. Why this artificial restriction? 3. Administration of name resolution behavior will be extremely obscure if users and administrators must add special purpose domain names to their search path to control DNS transport behavior... Coupling naming service behavior with special names is a bad idea. It is a hack to avoid confronting the real problem: We want DNS to work as it does today in the common case, to use mDNS in the unconfigured case. Only *when local policy allows* should we enable mDNS to coexist with DNS. Let's use a mechanism which allows this policy to be imposed on hosts, not a mechanism which imposes contortions upon standardization, applications, implementors and administrators. On 19 Aug, Robert Elz wrote: > Either of the latter two - the mdns-enable option is basically just > a special case of 2937, in a sense - but as I read 2937, it would need > another DNS option defined anyway, so its option number can be used in > the 2937 option (there's no current dhcp option giving the addresses > of the servers for mDNS .. for obvious reasons). Robert, I think you misread 2937. It gives only a list of 2 byte values corresponding to name services to try (in order), not addresses. 2937 is silent about how one gets addresses for name services and even how the option is interpreted by clients. --- My vote is to extend the Name Service Searchlist (RFC 2937) with new values for mDNS. Erik to unsubscribe send a message to namedroppers-request@ops.ietf.org with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
- Re: Sense of the WG: mDNS configuration? Aidan Williams
- Re: Sense of the WG: mDNS configuration? Robert Elz
- Re: Sense of the WG: mDNS configuration? Bernard Aboba
- Re: Sense of the WG: mDNS configuration? Stuart Cheshire
- Re: Sense of the WG: mDNS configuration? Bernard Aboba
- Re: Sense of the WG: mDNS configuration? Erik Guttman