On 03/02/2012 06:21 AM, [email protected] wrote: > Hello, > > I have an idea of home DNS server written in section 3.4.9 of > homenet-arch-01. > > Home gateways (CPE) have a DNS proxy function, > and all nodes in the network usually send DNS queries via the DNS proxy. > > My idea is to add authoritative DNS server function of local zone to > home gateways. > > A home gateway serves one forward local zone and local reverse zones > which the home gateway manage/offer by RA or DHCP. > > The authoritative DNS server function accepts DNS dynamic updates > whose owner name is within the forward local zone and whose IP adress > is within the IP addresses which the home gateway manages. > > When An end node starts, It gets IP/IPv6 address and DNS server > information, DNS domain name prefix information from the home gateway. > (option domain-name-servers and option domain-name in ISC dhcpd) > option domain-name can be used to provide the local forward zone name. > > If the end node wants to register its name into home DNS server, > it sends DNS dynamic update to the DNS servers which it got by DHCP. > > Clients can access the registered hostname using normal DNS lookup via > the DNS proxy. > > There are many points to be cleared. But the idea may work well and > it does not require new protocol and rewriting clients. > > It requires new home gateway (DNS proxy) and new dynamic update > program used by home servers. > > If there are multiple subnets and multiple home gateways, > DNS protocol has enough functions > (relaying dynamic updates, zone transfers,...). > > I think the idea works for both IPv4 with NAT and IPv6. > > Does the idea work for homenet WG? > Or already discussed ? > > If the idea is valuable, I will write a draft and sample DNS server. > > Note that CeroWrt (a derivative of OpenWrt in which we are doing our bufferbloat work) has a full Bind 9.9 implementation you can experiment with today, and that this has been our intent from the beginning, both to simplify naming for users, and to get a DNSSEC implementation.
A dnsmasq implementation would be welcome, for a couple reasons: competition is good, and it would likely be a lot smaller than ISC Bind is. But code that exists and runs trumps code not yet ready for primetime.... We'd love to have some help to flesh this out properly; it needs scripting support to get fully implemented the way we've envisioned it. We don't currently use ISC DHCP, as it's currently (due to an implementation crock being worked on) too big; there is a dibbler implementation being shaken down. See http://www.bufferbloat.net/projects/cerowrt - Jim _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
