On 09/11/2012 12:19 AM, Ray Bellis wrote:
I shall attempt to clarify.
Iff all "in-home" services can be reached (whilst in-home) by mDNS-like protocols then we
do not need an "in-home" unicast DNS zone.
To reach those same services from _outside_ the home does of course need them
to exist in the global DNS, as pointed out by Curtis.
To do that we need (I think) only two things:
1. the ability for the device (or the network on its behalf) to register a
FQDN for that device.
2. the ability for clients of that device to learn that FQDN when it's
bookmarked so that they can reach it from outside.
In the absence of an internal Unicast DNS zone all of the discussion of what that zone
should be is irrelevant. No need for "ULA prefix-based" LQDNs, for example.
So the point of the original email was to test that first assumption - i.e.
what services don't (or can't) work in-home without a local unicast DNS zone.
I'm sorry but this formulation is just plain wrong on almost every level.
Zeroconf-ish like solutions are when you *can't* do anything better. DNS
is better when you can. If I take the time to (re-)name something, I want
that to end up in a repository whose destiny is not tied to the particular
device. I very often want that name/device to be accessible outside of
my home too.
So no, let's not start from an assumption that it's an mDNS world in the
home. I'd say let's start from the opposite assumption that it's a normal
DNS world inside the home where mDNS is a way to auto-populate a
DNS repository in lieu of anything better.
Mike
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
