Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR) ' to Proposed Standard

[Henrik Levkowetz <[e-mail]>]

on 2005-08-31 05:40 Jeffrey Hutzelman said the following:
> 
> On Tuesday, August 30, 2005 15:55:56 -0700 Ned Freed 
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> IMO this needs major work even before being approved as experimental. The
>> overlapped namespace approach in particular seems hugely problematic and
>> IMO needs to be replaced.
> 
> I've only read this document briefly, but based on what I've seen and on 
> the descriptions and explanations in the current discussion, I have to 
> agree.  The overlapped namespace approach has significant problems, which 
> have been mentioned here.  It generates load in the form of additional 
> queries on caching servers and on the global DNS roots for names those 
> servers are never expected to be able to resolve, and in the form of 
> multicast traffic on the local link for potentially every failed query 
> against the global DNS.
> 
> 
> It also creates massive ambiguities in the namespace, by allowing any host 
> on the local link to claim any global DNS name which happens not to resolve 
> at the moment (even if due to a temporary failure).  This means that names 
> which are intended to be part of the global DNS namespace may resolve 
> differently depending on one's location, or what hosts might be responding 
> to LLMNR requests on the local network.
> 
> This is a problem so egregious that the IAB wrote a document about it 
> (RFC2826).  While the majority of that document pertains specifically to 
> recurring "alternate root" proposals, much of it applies equally well here 
> -- "alternate roots" are a bad idea because they split what needs to be a 
> single global namespace into several alternate namespaces.  The use of the 
> overlapped-namespace approach with LLMNR does the same thing, only instead 
> of creating a few alternate roots, it creates millions.

Good summaries, good points.

I do not believe the LLMNR specification should be published in
its current form; the namespace confluence is extremely bothersome,
and should not be accepted even for publication as an experimental
RFC.

Even if the namespace confluence problem is corrected, it seems
more appropriate - given the deployment of mDNS - to publish both
mDNS and LLMNR as experimental RFCs.

	Henrik.

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf