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

[Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <[e-mail]>]

Ted Lemon <[e-mail]> writes:

> El 15 ag 2017, a les 19:32, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <[e-mail]> va escriure:
>>> 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.
>> 
>> Sure, and that's what I usually do. But if we can't specify that
>> behaviour for homenet, at least trying all upstream DNS servers gives a
>> better chance of finding one that works.
>
> I'm really sorry, but I'm actually having trouble contextualizing the
> failure mode that you are talking about here.   Didn't I agree with
> you in a previous message that we should try all the upstream DNS
> servers?

Hmm, right, I guess you did. My point was more that an MPvD-aware client
that only uses on PvD may experience worse performance than one that
uses the in-home resolver. But I guess the client should be smart
enough to deal with that?

>> You may be right that hacking up a working prototype isn't that hard.
>> But the failure modes change from "the internet is down" or may "I
>> cannot access site A", to "site A is working every third attempt, except
>> it is entirely broken on device X" maybe even with an added "ah, but
>> it works on device X if I go into the kitchen".
>
> Didn't we agree that we aren't round-robining?

Yeah, but I was referring to the failure mode for MPvD vs non-MPvD
clients. I.e. if one of the resolvers fails for whatever reason, only
MPvD-aware clients that happen to select that PvD will notice; whereas
if there's only one resolver it will be very obvious when it's not
working...

>> Hmm, while writing this is occurred to me that it might make sense to
>> just export the ISP DNS server(s) directly in the MPvD-only RAs?
>
> This would certainly work, but now you can't have your nice local
> resolver that does what you want.   However, I think you are right
> that this is the right default behavior for MPvD-aware devices.

I would keep the in-home resolver for clients that do not support MPvD;
and probably also announce it as a separate PvD for MPvD-aware clients?

Also, I think I would prefer running a single resolver in the home,
rather than running one on every router.

-Toke