On 07/14/2014 11:47 PM, Markus Stenberg wrote:
On 9.7.2014, at 18.01, Juliusz Chroboczek j...@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr
wrote:
There's still something I don't understand. If I'm understanding Steve's
and Markus' work correctly, HNCP performs prefix delegation to internal
routers over HNCP,
Markus Stenberg markus.stenb...@iki.fi wrote:
Personally, I don’t believe in auto-exported ~full DNS information from
home because current service discovery schemes (mdns, dns-sd, upnp) or
even host-name discovery schemes (dhcp*) do not really lend themselves
to the external
Hi,
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 11:41:15AM -0400, Michael Richardson wrote:
I think that whether you auto-export, or whitelist, or blacklist, etc. is
completely a local matter. We may recommend a default, but we should make
sure that the mechanisms exist.
+1 for have a policy that specifies
On Jul 15, 2014, at 11:57 AM, Juliusz Chroboczek
j...@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr wrote:
(1) Do we want a standardised protocol for exporting data into the global DNS?
(2) What is the right policy from exporting homenet names into the global DNS?
We already have two standardized protocols for
On 15.7.2014, at 21.35, Juliusz Chroboczek j...@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr
wrote:
I assume you mean that we need to recommend a default policy and also
document the range of other policies that the end user might choose to
use.
No, I just mean that Markus not wanting anything published in
On Jul 15, 2014, at 2:45 PM, Markus Stenberg markus.stenb...@iki.fi wrote:
The mechanism should not be tied to the particular ISPs either, except
perhaps optionally.
I think the motivation with Daniel's draft was to provide support for the
optional case where the ISP wants to support it,
I assume you mean that we need to recommend a default policy and also
document the range of other policies that the end user might choose to
use.
No, I just mean that Markus not wanting anything published in DNS is
policy, and that's completely independent of whether we want to define
a
On 7/15/14, 12:00 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
On Jul 15, 2014, at 2:45 PM, Markus Stenberg markus.stenb...@iki.fi wrote:
The mechanism should not be tied to the particular ISPs either, except perhaps
optionally.
I think the motivation with Daniel's draft was to provide support for the optional case
On Jul 15, 2014, at 3:38 PM, Michael Thomas m...@mtcc.com wrote:
That pretty much means that you need a solution that isn't bolted to DHCP,
right?
Or at least, that DHCP is only providing a default discovery mechanism which
my CPE
is completely free to ignore. Beyond the discovery, it ought
On 7/15/14, 12:43 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
On Jul 15, 2014, at 3:38 PM, Michael Thomas m...@mtcc.com wrote:
That pretty much means that you need a solution that isn't bolted to DHCP,
right?
Or at least, that DHCP is only providing a default discovery mechanism which my
CPE
is completely free to
On Jul 15, 2014, at 3:55 PM, Michael Thomas m...@mtcc.com wrote:
What I'm trying to say is that DHCP as a way of advertising a service that
will host my zone, or
in some way make my homenet names globally available is OK, but it should
just be about
DISCOVERY and nothing else. All of the
On 7/15/14, 1:09 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
On Jul 15, 2014, at 3:55 PM, Michael Thomas m...@mtcc.com wrote:
What I'm trying to say is that DHCP as a way of advertising a service that will
host my zone, or
in some way make my homenet names globally available is OK, but it should just
be about
On Jul 15, 2014, at 4:27 PM, Michael Thomas m...@mtcc.com wrote:
Good. If that can be done at all, is there a reason that it cannot have those
properties?
That is if, say, my Google Nest spams my local homenet advertising the Google
Eggs-in-one-basket
DNS service, it should use the same set
On 7/15/14, 1:53 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
We can safely assume that any device that is monetized through the cloud will
do everything in its power to prevent us from accessing it, so that's really
not the interesting test case. The interesting test case is whether a
Nest-like device that isn't
On Jul 15, 2014, at 11:45 AM, Markus Stenberg markus.stenb...@iki.fi wrote:
On 15.7.2014, at 21.35, Juliusz Chroboczek j...@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr
wrote:
I assume you mean that we need to recommend a default policy and also
document the range of other policies that the end user might
On Jul 15, 2014, at 5:12 PM, Michael Thomas m...@mtcc.com wrote:
I believe we are at least in the fortunate situation that nobody's tried hard
to do a naming
provider land grab yet, so there may yet be time to do the right thing.
That's not the point. If you look at most of the
On 07/15/2014 04:42 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
On Jul 15, 2014, at 5:12 PM, Michael Thomas m...@mtcc.com wrote:
I believe we are at least in the fortunate situation that nobody's tried hard
to do a naming
provider land grab yet, so there may yet be time to do the right thing.
That's not the point.
On Jul 15, 2014, at 8:46 PM, Michael Thomas m...@mtcc.com wrote:
So we shouldn't be too fatalistic... the game is still
young on this account.
I applaud and encourage your optimism.
___
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
On Jul 15, 2014, at 5:46 PM, Michael Thomas m...@mtcc.com wrote:
On 07/15/2014 04:42 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
On Jul 15, 2014, at 5:12 PM, Michael Thomas m...@mtcc.com wrote:
I believe we are at least in the fortunate situation that nobody's tried
hard to do a naming
provider land grab yet, so
Hi
Thank you for your response and feed backs. See my response in the text
body as well as in your text. I think we are making progress.
[draft-mglt-homenet-front-end-naming-delegation] and
[draft-mglt-homenet-naming-architecture-dhc-options] are distinct
documents. The one describes the
- The architecture document
[draft-mglt-homenet-front-end-naming-delegation] in NOT CPE specific.
- The DHCP Options document
[draft-mglt-homenet-naming-architecture-dhc-options] is currently CPE
specific.
Ah, I see. That definitely needs to be clarified.
- a) Explicitly mention
Hi
Please see my comments inline.
On Sat, Jul 5, 2014 at 12:12 AM, Juliusz Chroboczek
j...@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr wrote:
The main idea is that the CPE builds the zone for the whole home
network.
Thanks for the clarification.
Daniel, perhaps I'm still misunderstanding something --
The main idea is that the CPE builds the zone for the whole home network.
Thanks for the clarification.
Daniel, perhaps I'm still misunderstanding something -- but I'm afraid that
right now I'm strongly opposed to this protocol. I hold no opinion yet on
whether proxying is necessary (although
Hi,
Thanks for the question. If I understand it properly, the use case you
consider: 1) you set up a web server in your homenet, 2) you want it to be
accessed from the outside so you register your domain name and register the
IP address to the zone. Note that In this case, the Authoritative
Thanks for your answer, Daniel.
If I understand it properly, the use case you consider: 1) you set up
a web server in your homenet, 2) you want it to be accessed from the
outside so you register your domain name and register the IP address to
the zone. Note that In this case, the
I'd like to understand why the device needs to go through the middleman
rather than speaking directly to the authoritative DNS server.
You may find some useful background in RFC 5625.
I'm increasingly confused. RFC 5625 is about proxying DNS requests from
the LAN. Daniel's draft is about
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
On Thu, 3 Jul 2014, Douglas Otis wrote:
Since mDNS is unable to make determinations regarding the ability of a
device to safely interact with the Internet, an overlay approach could
be taken. Although details are missing from the Hybrid
Unicast/Multicast DNS-Based Service Discovery draft,
Hi,
Here is a new version of the DHCP Options for Homenet Naming Architecture
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mglt-homenet-naming-architecture-dhc-options/.
DHCP Options are designed so the CPE can automatically outsource its
Authoritative DNS Service. [1]
We carefully considered the
On Jul 2, 2014, at 1:38 PM, Juliusz Chroboczek j...@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr
wrote:
Since I saw a previous version of that in London, I've been wondering
about one thing, but didn't dare ask. Please be indulgent if it is
a stupid question.
Why does the CPE need to intervene in what is
30 matches
Mail list logo
