Re: [homenet] Updating DNS [was: How many people have installed the homenet code?]

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Wed, 11 May 2016 18:04 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.com>
X-Original-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3A3812D505 for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 May 2016 11:04:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 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_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4zpPVquGwWBx for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 May 2016 11:04:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf0-x229.google.com (mail-lf0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 343BE12D53D for <homenet@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 May 2016 11:04:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf0-x229.google.com with SMTP id u64so58289780lff.3 for <homenet@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 May 2016 11:04:17 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=ZEeH5Kr42bFzhrAfH3dIN1SnZGAeekt9gNGW8CMzpms=; b=wh2WRfmICbCf28QnRd3qlxL7wSQG+JTiy2eeCRRAJ/8pIx5bhzsR1jo76IAE11d37A 4++NHH0fABeq6oDTEwIIiC/EwOixcDS7czzI+y4ZnWJNqoetJeUmkj1HI6wZkEM0/JiX xJfuQ7NgT2iQvm0RHvmDmBbdYu5Vx0kqZGUTT6wijJ7TQM1G1ku04xrjG6wjRlxuwT0R xROTIhbshQzcRHZGyLjfRNlaHLMjP9JbxNeclCPT+Cb2Zs7KB5/jF1rAkbvilbVcdOTX qI+ZBqdtSaIoPPLuO4QXFCSrnw3+cb1+m3SYHqowrPCbWh8CE3mL0x9wkvJzeAQGkBBW 084g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=ZEeH5Kr42bFzhrAfH3dIN1SnZGAeekt9gNGW8CMzpms=; b=H3GHG2RVU1o6RyWmJ2sun1o+qKd/ZHP5jPdO6FPCawMFOK4G+3SD5liMmk3aiuSHM0 NK7n4q3/vfxypLtU2J2DiQdHJAlsZaTog3n/LH9YTXE46A9a/5CG1hssQPPl9sM8+Bwn i0HiDGWbmJXeck6MAP0hG1Zrer2l6PhpfJ4ou8o0ZDuAb1OUIVpltaq7Z9iMrcn+TIVK hDR9uG21uqPhpLqQz9auD55jp2ZSdSc2nLQHbKmjCOBFQHYhVdE4bsjMKVBvymsMyEc6 OuCF4nOsco/v4qWE8XG6OONaKiEAvLlgWnXbnpxLoUx38kmtBlt+vl2Np8Z8WKK81VlG gdIg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FW7r0yEwJ1CFFk1gPZWDrprUupzzd5bb7NSjDdF/z7sk3K5tLiekuQYFESGLa3Zt3F0RyKP/49QVT9xXA==
X-Received: by 10.112.161.41 with SMTP id xp9mr2157052lbb.133.1462989855351; Wed, 11 May 2016 11:04:15 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.25.153.135 with HTTP; Wed, 11 May 2016 11:03:35 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <57337274.1040000@globis.net>
References: <6E709688-414A-4AFB-AEAE-56BAE0469583@coote.org> <87oa93vz8e.wl-jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> <917CFE11-2386-4B0D-8A81-F87764AC09A4@coote.org> <87lh47vtpe.wl-jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> <02CF43FB-CF81-4C0C-84E1-A8DFB27B3F8C@coote.org> <87lh44fff7.wl-jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> <48A9C52C-85BC-4123-A3ED-FB269AD03126@iki.fi> <87eg9wfctc.wl-jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> <CAPt1N1nq1CTMmQHFQXnaFY73SyRPKpWagiMVfrHODakbeT2Wxw@mail.gmail.com> <87a8kj3r7p.wl-jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> <CAPt1N1nN+ih8xpBV_-T_JaGtbBG6d5zYqW==tph8yN_UB34NNw@mail.gmail.com> <56DB4264-1769-443A-86F2-BB0BE0ED9693@ecs.soton.ac.uk> <EMEW3|87dc38b1e390496e02166dafe2490d8as44D0U03tjc|ecs.soton.ac.uk|56DB4264-1769-443A-86F2-BB0BE0ED9693@ecs.soton.ac.uk> <57333B3F.7000009@globis.net> <CC759790-4F9B-47B8-A42C-A85F78AC9773@jisc.ac.uk> <57335AB6.8060305@globis.net> <87mvnwh81u.wl-jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> <CAPt1N1nu98pXdDzVgZ2yW7xe8mwA=O+zmoGS8XLs_NLbNUaKFQ@mail.gmail.com> <57337274.1040000@globis.net>
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 14:03:35 -0400
Message-ID: <CAPt1N1=mVBM-Dyg50eAv4Lz4XK1Hfe1SgHH5osR9fuhJhc0DWQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Ray Hunter (v6ops)" <v6ops@globis.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c26b2aa3820c053294de59
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/homenet/HV7EHbT7tEavQ52ZgizMXmLMAPA>
Cc: Tim Chown <Tim.Chown@jisc.ac.uk>, "homenet@ietf.org" <homenet@ietf.org>, Markus Stenberg <markus.stenberg@iki.fi>, Juliusz Chroboczek <jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr>
Subject: Re: [homenet] Updating DNS [was: How many people have installed the homenet code?]
X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Homenet WG mailing list <homenet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/homenet>, <mailto:homenet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/homenet/>
List-Post: <mailto:homenet@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:homenet-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet>, <mailto:homenet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 18:04:48 -0000

DNS update is pretty simple.   Any problem with using that?

I think you may be slightly conclusing "authoritative" and "primary."
There is no need to elect authoritative servers--just make them secondary
to the elected primary.   You can't have two primaries with stock
DNS--that's probably the biggest fly in the ointment.

The reason to have a hybrid proxy is because we have to support existing
devices.   Clearly it's not the right long-term solution, but we can't
force vendors to implement something new if they don't want to.


On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 1:57 PM, Ray Hunter (v6ops) <v6ops@globis.net>;
wrote:

>
>
> Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>;
> 11 May 2016 18:37
>
>> > I don't like the hybrid proxy model either.  It promises the union of
>> > the problems and intersection of the functionality.  Proxying flies in
>> > the face of the trend of smart devices and dumb networks.
>>
>> Very well put.
>>
>
> Be that as it may, Homenet in general flies in the face of that trend.
> And if you think about it, that trend isn't really a very smart trend,
> because the burden it places on devices is extreme, and not all devices
> have infinite resources to spend mapping the network and figuring out how
> to publish their services on it.
>
> But if we were to build a smart network from scratch, I also wouldn't
> start with proxies, nor maintain a distributed database in the hosts.
>
> I'd start with letting the routers build a naming infra, together with
> defining a (simple) name registration protocol between host and on-link
> router(s) (together with conflict resolution to communicate "sorry, that
> names already taken")
>
> And the starting point would then probably be HNCP + DNS to elect a max of
> 'n' authoritative name servers per homenet, where 'n' NS and AAAA records
> can fit it a single UDP packet.
>
> So whether you prefer a "smart host" or "smart network" model, hybrid
> proxies seem a poor compromise.
>
> --
> regards,
> RayH
>
> <https://www.postbox-inc.com/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=siglink&utm_campaign=reach>
>