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

Ted Lemon <> Thu, 12 July 2018 21:45 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D87751311B1 for <>; Thu, 12 Jul 2018 14:45:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.909
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.909 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.01, 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 plXreazTZdPV for <>; Thu, 12 Jul 2018 14:45:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 512911277BB for <>; Thu, 12 Jul 2018 14:45:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id w16-v6so8937562ita.0 for <>; Thu, 12 Jul 2018 14:45:11 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=QiWCk1Zbuk5fVnL8bKrCvMJ3YfQKJpd1RICcmoItrwQ=; b=iQxQibBReDbIDu47/GTrCPutruZzC0EX9O/lvhIYJtgVrLHGWvet7P2KSfF+Kosr1q htw9wSxnJR2V6m/VNW0E8hP+pZXP94ulrApAYVxJBULJ5OrkqGHsd6xpkKYGvUQDQDKF +vbNaVzH0zap1x6QdKQfkxyP+Fb8BlcG2ZvyoECJARBXe0gh96Gg3yX5UlWa5EtUszFn Lhk2vWXfgkGLULnzX0qQWHd/lBXezPX3L0so+s4W1bUSubYhiH1pdZqT7uDhpYsrmkWR RL9oijcBlghvE2LkTmEQcLiy6TeD9PDDr9kx/HpVm1WkhV6Fg0bygWymReGuBhldkUCW Mr4g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=QiWCk1Zbuk5fVnL8bKrCvMJ3YfQKJpd1RICcmoItrwQ=; b=g99jI7w0Gqa9yJHPyOyXccBzAh84TfWeLdCLJ5fnRcq8hNbz7ZxsEYWDHUD1jCX5vc B1La/7pXuk4ZY3M5g1Cw3Y+z/t7l8k3IXjrMUcOlwCjonjbE4S5Y8xGx579bQXWzQp1y 5XIQc5Vo2G2RjsjB0ottrKjD73PV4zsntMvvPonEvrOj66hrHfAvBc6kqgiS+914wC4v qfFbuoQHtqmfKEeKia+9m5uCOWfxbXG8VTEGWNvVf+ALqw1byUv9uD14J5HSr6EWpssG Hs4DMDoeIM3Q0Mq2FfSuivCA0XfxqfBnKU84SErxzf8AVwB3t9UtJ4o+errcl6QPzy1E hTsA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOUpUlG87TeATJwDETMql8Zn3yeDYZ/zywUgf9EMCoZ1LSmXroTWmqAg LFniTsaVG3QjKd4vpqZeEKPccardx1iF/IU2RrBG+w==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AAOMgpdSJoUBIS7FHVSzyxPhGqCVHiVc8oDP0r256uWYVV5CPnsN0MkcWYfOTSdQFue09aCyb30h+IdQaEl5FE2W/lg=
X-Received: by 2002:a24:d485:: with SMTP id x127-v6mr2855930itg.82.1531431910507; Thu, 12 Jul 2018 14:45:10 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 2002:a4f:5f86:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Thu, 12 Jul 2018 14:44:29 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Ted Lemon <>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2018 17:44:29 -0400
Message-ID: <>
To: =?UTF-8?B?VG9rZSBIw7hpbGFuZC1Kw7hyZ2Vuc2Vu?= <>
Cc: David Schinazi <>, dnssd <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000062e8e0570d44711"
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 21:45:14 -0000

Hm.   For the cloud case, with NAT, that seems kind of problematic anyway,
because now you have A records in the public DNS pointing at RFC1918
addresses.   The right way to handle this is with PCP and an SRV record
pointing at the NAT router's public address and using the PCP-assigned
port.   I didn't document this because I think it's kind of an extra-cost
option, but that's how it would have to work.

On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 5:39 PM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <>

> 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...).
> -Toke