Re: [homenet] Status of draft-tldm-simple-homenet-naming CFA

[Ted Lemon <[e-mail]>]

El 15 ag 2017, a les 15:38, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <[e-mail]> va escriure:
>> I think we are wandering off into nonsense territory here.   Have you
>> observed this sort of problem in the field?   If so, can you describe
>> what happened?   If not, why would we optimize for it?
> 
> If you consider flaky ISP DNS servers to be "nonsense" you are clearly
> more fortunate with your ISPs than me. And that's before even going into
> the DNS censorship issue; in my part of the world ISP DNS servers are
> broken *by design*.

In both of these cases, you are better off doing what we discussed earlier and setting up your own DNS cache, possibly with a whitelist for domains you want to send to the ISP forwarder.

>>> Right, so if this is the case, how about we specify that routers MAY (or
>>> maybe even SHOULD) support MPvD-specific resolver addresses, and
>>> advertise the fact over HNCP. And that if a router receives such an
>>> announcement from another router it MUST announce the MPvD-specific
>>> resolver addresses over DHCP/RA. This way we ensure that *if* a router
>>> on the network implements MPvD it is going to work for the whole
>>> network; but routers can still opt to not implement the functionality
>>> itself if the implementer doesn't want to pay the implementation cost.
>> 
>> Can you describe for us what this implementation cost is that you want
>> to avoid?
> 
> Can you describe for us how multiplying the number of resolvers by N (or
> MxN if we follow your suggestion of running a full set of resolvers on
> every router) is *not* going to incur a significant implementation and
> debugability cost?

It's just a bunch of ports/address pairs, with one thing listening on all of them, and using the port/address pair as a behavioral selector.   I'm not going to say that it's zero effort, but it's not hard.   Honestly, every home router right now has some kind of DNS proxy or DNS resolver in it; this is not a big change.   Compared to, say, implementing HNCP or DNSSD, it's utterly trivial.