Re: [homenet] Unicast DNS within the Homenet?

Hi Brian,

Totally agree with you.  In fact, I think Ray asked about the use case for
unicast DNS within Homenet.  I think locating service names in a small
business, dormitory, etc. is that use case where mDNS does not scale well
and where a globally unique name is maybe not necessary.......

Don

On 9/10/12 8:48 AM, "Brian E Carpenter" <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Don,
>
>Yes, based on, and it will be good to see those RFCs out.
>
>What I'm basically worried about here is ending up with one
>toolset for homenets and a different toolset for small enterprise
>networks, which seem much more likely to go the DNS way than anything
>else. In practice there's no hard and fast boundary between home and
>small business.
>
>  Brian
>
>
>On 10/09/2012 15:17, Don Sturek wrote:
>> Bonjour is based on mDNS
>> (http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-cheshire-dnsext-multicastdns/)
>>and
>> DNS-SD (http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-cheshire-dnsext-dns-sd/),
>> both currently in the RFC editors queue.....
>> 
>> Don
>> 
>> On 9/10/12 6:53 AM, "Brian E Carpenter" <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 10/09/2012 14:09, Ray Bellis wrote:
>>>> On 10 Sep 2012, at 13:58, Brian E Carpenter
>>>> <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Using literal addresses is evil for many reasons - surely we don't
>>>>> need to
>>>>> discuss that ancient question again?
>>>> I wasn't promoting it, just noting that this is the current position,
>>>> with Bonjour et al becoming the "preferred" way.  The latter is "a
>>>>good
>>>> thing".
>>> afaik Bonjour is a proprietary protocol. How can that be a good thing?
>>>
>>>>> The right question is whether DNS is the appropriate solution for
>>>>> converting
>>>>> local devices names to addresses, or whether there is some other
>>>>> naming service that
>>>>> should be the standard. Since DNS is the IETF standard for converting
>>>>> names
>>>>> to addresses, there would need to be a pretty strong case for
>>>>>anything
>>>>> else.
>>>> The IETF has _other_ protocols for naming services (mDNS, LLMNR) that
>>>> are designed for local networks, albeit with the "wrong" multicast
>>>>scope
>>>> as far as we're concerned.
>>> And SLP, explicitly designed for locating services.
>>>
>>>> My question is therefore more about whether (internal) unicast DNS is
>>>> actually required at all.
>>> And I'm saying that's the wrong question.
>>>
>>> I think the right question is whether there is an *open* standard for
>>> discovering
>>> service addresses from service names that is more suitable than DNS.
>>>
>>>    Brian
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> homenet mailing list
>>> homenet@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
>> 
>> 
>> 