On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 02:39:26PM +0200, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: > I'm increasingly confused. RFC 5625 is about proxying DNS requests from > the LAN. Daniel's draft is about proxying dynamic DNS updates, right?
Yes. My impression is that the idea in Daniel's draft is that the ISP will take the load of most DNS queries, and will effectively mark a boundary of split-horizon, so that some names resolve both outside and inside the local network, and some will resolve only inside. This is really a formalization of the way many CPE systems already work, where they update services like Dyn (full disclosure: my employer), no-ip, and so on. The differences seem to be (1) that the relationship is somehow stapled to the ISP rather than to an outside service and (2) that the commands all flow over Dynamic Update as opposed to any other protocol. Personally, I see the value in (2), but I'm worried about (1). Thinking as a vendor, I note that (2) basically means ditching a lot of running code, although for a protocol I think is poorly designed. A -- Andrew Sullivan a...@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
