Dear Ted and Ray, For many users, Internet obtainable services are fairly limited. One major advantage offered by the Homenet approach is an ability to cobble together several "limited" providers to improve reliability.
The TLD '.lo' looks somewhat like a ccTLD and '.lan' has already been suggested. Since ICANN asked '.lan' and '.home' be set-aside, why worry about contested naming authority in these cases? .home or .lan or .lo should not be considered catch-all domains since they would not be visible beyond the local network and yet function locally beyond uplink outages. It seems counter-productive to suggest schemes where Internet services must work in conjunction with DNS dedicated at exposing previously private services whose visibility is normally limited to the local network. Why should private internal naming even depend on external DNS? Such an approach is unlikely to be more robust and what happens when uplinks go down? Apple learned a valuable lesson when abandoning .me hosting. Now it seems Homenet is intent at offering similar hosting services. Such an effort is likely to necessitate an inordinate level of support and incur additional risk. Are providers interested in supporting dedicates DNS that sync addresses and names for all internal services without substantial cost increases? Whether a multi-router system makes use of site dedicated public DNS or not, a naming convention able to extend beyond the bridge is still needed to properly support multi-device multi-vendor system configuration, especially in cases where trickle and babel don't meet their expectations. Naming conventions able to span bridges would be able to adapt to any number of strategies that might be used over Homenet development and deployment. Regards, Douglas Otis _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
