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

[Douglas Otis <[e-mail]>]

On Jul 2, 2014, at 1:38 PM, Juliusz Chroboczek <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Since I saw a previous version of that in London, I've been wondering
> about one thing, but didn't dare ask.  Please be indulgent if it is
> a stupid question.
> 
> Why does the CPE need to intervene in what is an application layer
> interaction between two consenting adults?  If I'm setting up a web server
> on my home network, I'd expect that negotiating a DNS registration is
> a private matter between the web server and the authoritative DNS master;
> why would I want the CPE to act as intermediary?

Dear Juliusz,

That is a very good question.

In essence, especially because ULA address use was ignored by the mDNS proxy scheme, anything reported by mDNS that is routable is to be published into DNS as a means to establish a routable unicast alternative to that of mDNS.  One major downside is this will end up including devices never intended to have direct access from the Internet, where things like an All-in-One printer or baby monitor may find themselves.  Use of a ULA addressing space offers a locally routable alternative without exposing these devices to the Internet.  Unfortunately, many in the homenet wg consider this to be a problem to be resolved by the device rather than the homenet protocol.

Regards,
Douglas Otis