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

[Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <[e-mail]>]

Ted Lemon <[e-mail]> writes:

> On Aug 10, 2017, at 6:07 PM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> Now, assuming that I am wrong and this is actually a serious issue that
>> we need to solve (of which I am not opposed to being convinced), I think
>> it would be feasible to come up with a solution where we could at least
>> allow less capable routers that do not implement the full MPvD support.
>> I can think of at least two ways off the top of my head:
>> 
>> 1. Allow the router in question to offload queries to a more capable
>>   router elsewhere in the homenet.
>> 
>> 2. Allow the router in question to just query all upstreams and combine
>>   the results (and so offload the problem to the client).
>
> Great.   Can you explain, step by step, how to do either of these
> things?

Given that router A supports MPvD and router B doesn't:

1a. Router A exports over HNCP that it supports MPvD. Router B forwards
    all queries to router A, using a source address in the same prefix
    as the original request was received from.

1b. Router A exports over HNCP that it supports MPvD. Router B uses
    router A's address (which would need to be routable inside the
    homenet, obviously) as the DNS server in RAs.

2. Router B simultaneously forwards the query to all upstream DNS
   servers known to the homenet, waits for replies from N of them,
   creates the union set of all those replies and sends that back to the
   client.

If N=1 in 2, that corresponds to just ignoring MPvD. Router B could also
fall back to 2 if no router A is available on the network.

Now, please feel free to explain why you think these would break
things... ;)

-Toke