Re: [tae] New draft: announcing the supported transports via DNS

[Joe Touch <[e-mail]>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1



Dan Wing wrote:
>  
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On 
>> Behalf Of Joe Touch
>> Sent: Friday, September 18, 2009 8:23 AM
>> To: Michael Welzl
>> Cc: [e-mail]
>> Subject: Re: [tae] New draft: announcing the supported 
>> transports via DNS
>>
> 
> 
> Michael Welzl wrote:
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> This discussion reminds me of something else:
>>>> someone (I think Jana?) mentioned the possibility of negotiating
>>>> more than just the transport protocol, e.g. even the usage of IPv6,
>>>> with a negotiation protocol.
>>>>
>>>> I recently talked about this with someone who knows more about
>>>> IPv6 than me (actually not hard to find such a person!), and that
>>>> someone said that a standard is already in place for determining
>>>> whether IPv6 can be used **via DNS**.
> That presumes two things:
> 
> a) you know which protocol to use to get to the DNS
> 
> b) not everybody uses the DNS, at which point you definitely need to
> know the address format since you need to know the address
> 
>> Not everybody uses TCP, either.  For example, RTP is commonly
>> sent over UDP and the IPv4 addresses are commonly signaled in
>> SDP as IPv4 address literals.  So RTP doesn't use DNS or TCP.
> 
>> But DNS-less and TCP-less applications or usage are not the
>> 80% that is the interesting problem.  I can't maintain
>> host tables for the Internet anymore -- it's too big.  The need
>> for DNS is more acute with long and awkward IPv6 addresses.

As you note, addresses are sometimes used for non-human purposes, and
with IPv6 they could be created on the fly - I wouldn't want to have to
wait to register them in the DNS vs exchanging them in-band.

JOe
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)

iEYEARECAAYFAkqzz2EACgkQE5f5cImnZrtbuwCeJ1q/llgMNdSjgTjxqeVV8wRl
eUYAoIojx7AegGO5bDY8NC+Hikegb6st
=Wya+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----