Ted Lemon <mel...@fugue.com> writes: > On Aug 10, 2017, at 6:07 PM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <t...@toke.dk> wrote: >> Now, assuming that I am wrong and this is actually a serious issue that >> we need to solve (of which I am not opposed to being convinced), I think >> it would be feasible to come up with a solution where we could at least >> allow less capable routers that do not implement the full MPvD support. >> I can think of at least two ways off the top of my head: >> >> 1. Allow the router in question to offload queries to a more capable >> router elsewhere in the homenet. >> >> 2. Allow the router in question to just query all upstreams and combine >> the results (and so offload the problem to the client). > > Great. Can you explain, step by step, how to do either of these > things?
Given that router A supports MPvD and router B doesn't: 1a. Router A exports over HNCP that it supports MPvD. Router B forwards all queries to router A, using a source address in the same prefix as the original request was received from. 1b. Router A exports over HNCP that it supports MPvD. Router B uses router A's address (which would need to be routable inside the homenet, obviously) as the DNS server in RAs. 2. Router B simultaneously forwards the query to all upstream DNS servers known to the homenet, waits for replies from N of them, creates the union set of all those replies and sends that back to the client. If N=1 in 2, that corresponds to just ignoring MPvD. Router B could also fall back to 2 if no router A is available on the network. Now, please feel free to explain why you think these would break things... ;) -Toke _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet