Re: Proposed optimization to multicast DNS

[David Terrell <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Jul 11, 2001 at 10:54:04PM -0700, Brian Zill wrote:
> I propose something similar for multicast DNS.  All IPv6 responders
> should listen to multicast queries on a "solicited name multicast
> address" instead of a single well-known multicast address.  They derive
> their solicited name multicast address(es) by combining a 104-bit
> well-known link-local multicast prefix with the 24-bit result of a hash
> over the first portion of the name of the record(s) for which they are
> authoritative. 
> 
> [...]
>
> Open issues:
> 
> Size of multicast prefix and hash result.  I chose 104 and 24,
> respectively, simply because those are the lengths used for solicited
> node multicast addresses.  A smaller hash result would increase the
> likelihood of collisions, but the smaller address range might be more
> palatable to IANA.  The choice of hash function might also figure in
> here.
> 
> What hash function to use?  Any half-way reasonable hash function would
> do, so it might be wise to use a hash function that all IPv6
> implementations are required to have anyway.  But MD5 and SHA-1 both
> seem a little overkill for this purpose.  The internet checksum isn't
> great, and only yields 16 bits, but the code is present everywhere.

How does DNS's case insensitivity come into play here?

-- 
David Terrell   | "To increase the hype, I'm gonna release a bunch
Nebcorp PM      | of BLT variants (NetBLT, FreeBLT, BLT386, etc)
[e-mail]    | and create artificial rivalries."
wwn.nebcorp.com |  - Brian Sweltand (www.openblt.org)


to unsubscribe send a message to [e-mail] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.