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 DNS is > policy, and that's completely independent of whether we want to define > a mechanism. I have no opinion on either point. > > All I know is that if we want to define a mechanism, then the mechanism > should be compatible with the worldview of HNCP, which includes things > such as multiple internal links and multiple CPEs.
The mechanism should not be tied to the particular ISPs either, except perhaps optionally. In my case, I have 2 upstream ISPs, neither of which officially even admits IPv6 exists, but I _would_ like to publish my home v6 zone somewhere.. *sigh* So to summarize: - mechanism to publish either single DNS updates or zones would be nice to have (possibly with tie-in to service discovery) - with policy bits thrown in and some sort of possible zero-conf use, with help of co-operating ISP perhaps, but _not_ requiring the first-hop ISP to be the only party you interact with. The ‘homenet’ policy stuff may be actually relatively extensive in the end, although with some sort of reasonable zeroconf defaults. In this case, policy stuff should apply to what’s advertised (and in which scope), and where it can be reached from (firewalling either with accept rules, or PCP-derived holes). (Hmm. We don’t seem to have any drafts on policy or management yet.) Cheers, -Markus _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
