Re: [homenet] New version draft-mglt-homenet-naming-architecture-dhc-options-02.txt

Andrew Sullivan <> Thu, 03 July 2014 14:00 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1A621B2A00 for <>; Thu, 3 Jul 2014 07:00:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.141
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.141 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_MISMATCH_INFO=1.448, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AHqGHsW_CLke for <>; Thu, 3 Jul 2014 07:00:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DF34F1B29D5 for <>; Thu, 3 Jul 2014 07:00:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D42A38A031 for <>; Thu, 3 Jul 2014 14:00:05 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2014 10:00:04 -0400
From: Andrew Sullivan <>
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Subject: Re: [homenet] New version draft-mglt-homenet-naming-architecture-dhc-options-02.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2014 14:00:11 -0000

On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 02:39:26PM +0200, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
> I'm increasingly confused.  RFC 5625 is about proxying DNS requests from
> the LAN.  Daniel's draft is about proxying dynamic DNS updates, right?

Yes.  My impression is that the idea in Daniel's draft is that the ISP
will take the load of most DNS queries, and will effectively mark a
boundary of split-horizon, so that some names resolve both outside and
inside the local network, and some will resolve only inside.  This is
really a formalization of the way many CPE systems already work, where
they update services like Dyn (full disclosure: my employer), no-ip,
and so on.  The differences seem to be (1) that the relationship is
somehow stapled to the ISP rather than to an outside service and (2)
that the commands all flow over Dynamic Update as opposed to any other
protocol.  Personally, I see the value in (2), but I'm worried about
(1).  Thinking as a vendor, I note that (2) basically means ditching a
lot of running code, although for a protocol I think is poorly


Andrew Sullivan