[mdnsext] mdnsproxy and hybrid proxy loop detection
Alf Watt <alf.watt@ruckuswireless.com> Fri, 01 February 2013 17:34 UTC
Return-Path: <alf.watt@ruckuswireless.com>
X-Original-To: mdnsext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mdnsext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C34DB21E8049 for <mdnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Feb 2013 09:34:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Hit+LkS0PAci for <mdnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Feb 2013 09:34:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from va3outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (va3ehsobe010.messaging.microsoft.com [216.32.180.30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0F7021F8D6A for <mdnsext@ietf.org>; Fri, 1 Feb 2013 09:34:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail93-va3-R.bigfish.com (10.7.14.250) by VA3EHSOBE006.bigfish.com (10.7.40.26) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.23; Fri, 1 Feb 2013 17:34:32 +0000
Received: from mail93-va3 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail93-va3-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA8343402DA; Fri, 1 Feb 2013 17:34:31 +0000 (UTC)
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:157.56.245.85; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); IPV:NLI; H:CH1PRD0811HT004.namprd08.prod.outlook.com; RD:none; EFVD:NLI
X-SpamScore: -21
X-BigFish: PS-21(zz98dI9371Ic85fhzz1ee6h1de0h1202h1e76h1d1ah1d2ahzz1033IL8275bh8275dh18c673hz32i2a8h668h839hd25hf0ah1288h12a5h12bdh137ah1441h1504h1537h153bh15d0h162dh1631h1758h18e1h1946h1155h)
Received: from mail93-va3 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail93-va3 (MessageSwitch) id 1359740069257288_3056; Fri, 1 Feb 2013 17:34:29 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from VA3EHSMHS022.bigfish.com (unknown [10.7.14.240]) by mail93-va3.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A49A4E0049; Fri, 1 Feb 2013 17:34:29 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from CH1PRD0811HT004.namprd08.prod.outlook.com (157.56.245.85) by VA3EHSMHS022.bigfish.com (10.7.99.32) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.225.23; Fri, 1 Feb 2013 17:34:28 +0000
Received: from CH1PRD0811MB407.namprd08.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.8.195]) by CH1PRD0811HT004.namprd08.prod.outlook.com ([10.255.155.39]) with mapi id 14.16.0263.000; Fri, 1 Feb 2013 17:34:27 +0000
From: Alf Watt <alf.watt@ruckuswireless.com>
To: "mdnsext@ietf.org" <mdnsext@ietf.org>, "farmer@umn.edu" <farmer@umn.edu>
Thread-Topic: mdnsproxy and hybrid proxy loop detection
Thread-Index: AQHOAKJh1GgxTglkkkCRNOHg7DN7XA==
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2013 17:34:26 +0000
Message-ID: <D99048ACAF96354EBFD6A811E3C65ACD1097BE5A@CH1PRD0811MB407.namprd08.prod.outlook.com>
References: <mailman.108.1359489625.24927.mdnsext@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <mailman.108.1359489625.24927.mdnsext@ietf.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.255.155.4]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D99048ACAF96354EBFD6A811E3C65ACD1097BE5ACH1PRD0811MB407_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: ruckuswireless.com
Subject: [mdnsext] mdnsproxy and hybrid proxy loop detection
X-BeenThere: mdnsext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion of extensions to Bonjour \(mDNS and DNS-SD\) for routed networks." <mdnsext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mdnsext>, <mailto:mdnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mdnsext>
List-Post: <mailto:mdnsext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mdnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mdnsext>, <mailto:mdnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2013 17:34:33 -0000
My initial though is that loop detection is most important for multicast to multicast proxy scenarios, which is the current state of the art in bonjour bridges. Can anyone think of a case where the proposed hybrid proxy can get into a loop? One solution I've been considering is to have the proxy advertise itself as a service, _mdnsproxy._udp. for e.g., if they include some basic configuration information in the txt record then a second proxy can detect the presence of another proxy with similar configuration and disable any conflicting proxy directives until such time as the first proxy removes itself from the subnet. Best, Alf On Jan 29, 2013, at 12:00 PM, mdnsext-request@ietf.org<mailto:mdnsext-request@ietf.org> wrote: From: David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu<mailto:farmer@umn.edu>> Subject: Re: [mdnsext] mDNSext features/requirements rollup Date: January 29, 2013 10:59:51 AM PST To: "Stephen Orr (sorr)" <sorr@cisco.com<mailto:sorr@cisco.com>> Cc: "mdnsext@ietf.org<mailto:mdnsext@ietf.org>" <mdnsext@ietf.org<mailto:mdnsext@ietf.org>>, Dan Harkins <dharkins@lounge.org<mailto:dharkins@lounge.org>> As a first step I'm ok with this, in fact I'm already doing it, but I view this as mostly a work around or hack. 1. What happens if you get a proxy loop? This seems really bad! Right now I have nothing to prevent this. 2. Maybe loop detection can be defined as part o a proxies behavior.