Re: [dnssd] The DNSSD WG has placed draft-sctl-service-registration in state "Call For Adoption By WG Issued"

Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <> Thu, 12 July 2018 21:39 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF1FF1311AD for <>; Thu, 12 Jul 2018 14:39:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MUjWUJTQzf-l for <>; Thu, 12 Jul 2018 14:39:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D0C691311A7 for <>; Thu, 12 Jul 2018 14:39:20 -0700 (PDT)
From: Toke =?utf-8?Q?H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen?= <>
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;; s=20161023; t=1531431559; bh=zFpDbzoTue+/NdSpLiFMbcH9475ETHBK/rYxqgD3Szs=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=coe5yStjoLeT5/AGlTgrCIoU311ph3WncpYxsnh90UBvUAGIQEjbKWYE8CjPUzFu2 2Q5dMCKhHiVjopFhAliuvggOdSfmh6dP1i4H2gqDwXzpvUcpDSlN7fyQxH/HeKSmXy WgXejcJuuOnSw+TCMVxBMgOFETiMbWdL1OyIuf2TKPobUtB8KizX8B2FvromIfmIrY PuSNcARxIL7dPAE2cAGSh0Rm2s9V5O/YPEl75WdmJzKuYqhiuEsUCCh8OsUJgTDWb3 pRxVO7etLDtxxQcWswJihsVL7Fr74syDESNLylXOU024grpAEJmJJw39m0Lk8tBWEb LceV0HEJ04XtQ==
To: Ted Lemon <>
Cc: David Schinazi <>, dnssd <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2018 23:39:18 +0200
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
Message-ID: <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [dnssd] The DNSSD WG has placed draft-sctl-service-registration in state "Call For Adoption By WG Issued"
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion of extensions to DNS-based service discovery for routed networks." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2018 21:39:23 -0000

Ted Lemon <> writes:

> Yes, this requires separate registrations for IPv4 and IPv6. I think
> that's okay. What's a bit chancy is that it also means that if you
> have a ULA and a GUA, you have to pick one, or do two updates. As for
> NAT, I think we have to assume that the network is not double-natted.
> If it's a homenet, that will be true. If it's a campus network, that
> will be true. If it's a bunch of crappy routers plugged together, it's
> unlikely that service registration will be available anyway, so we
> don't care. Do you buy that? :)

Heh. For now, probably; by the time this becomes a standard, who knows?
(but surely there will be no more IPv4 by then, right? ;))

My concern is that requiring client address visibility breaks my
deployment use case, where the registration server lives in the cloud...
Or rather, I could probably live without v4, but I wouldn't be surprised
if someone else got the same idea (DNSSD as a service? One could
potentially run a dyndns type service using the same mechanism...).