Sure, it *could*, but it's probably easier to implement it as a split-horizon DNS server that only talks to the homenet.
On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 12:31 AM, Tim Wicinski <tjw.i...@gmail.com> wrote: > Instead of calling it a "DNS Server" perhaps call it the "declarative data > store"? it could be a git repo, > > tim > > On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 10:43 PM, Ted Lemon <mel...@fugue.com> wrote: > >> The DNS server in the cloud doesn't have to answer queries. Indeed, it >> probably shouldn't. It's really just a backing store. The >> public/private primary with selective publication is just a functional >> block—you can put it where it makes the most sense. Juliusz is saying >> that he wants a nearly stateless homenet; for him, putting the >> public/primary functional block in the cloud makes sense because it keeps >> his homenet stateless. I would not want that configuration because it >> exposes the internals of my network to the cloud provider (unless it's also >> encrypted, but then you have a keying problem). >> >> On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 9:02 PM, Michael Thomas <m...@mtcc.com> wrote: >> >>> On 07/23/2018 05:45 PM, STARK, BARBARA H wrote: >>> >>>> You're concerned with the homenet losing state when the master is >>>>>> unplugged. By having the master in the cloud, this problem is >>>>>> eliminated. >>>>>> >>>>> I can't speak for Juliusz, but my first question was "what if i don't >>>>> want it in the cloud"? For one thing, what if it's a cloudless day? >>>>> >>>> I was starting to accept the idea that selecting a subset of my devices >>>> to exist in global DNS. But absolutely, positively, not all. Any design I >>>> could buy into will *not* push all my DNS into the cloud. >>>> >>> >>> As usual i'm probably behind, but I kind of thought this was more about >>> provisioning/configs. The way I've thought >>> about this is that where I decide is the ultimate repository for truth >>> for my configs is really a deeply personal >>> decision. The easy case is when i delegate it to "the cloud" since it >>> then becomes somebody else's $DAYJOB to >>> figure out how to back it up, etc. But if I want to keep things local -- >>> for whatever reason, including tin foil hats -- >>> i'd really like my homenet to have the property that i can take one >>> router and throw it in the trash, and plug in >>> another, and with minimal fuss it takes over for the old one. >>> >>> For naming, that implies that i want to distribute the naming database >>> such that there isn't a single point of failure. >>> While this isn't exactly new territory, it is in the context of my home >>> networking. Better would be to use already >>> standardized mechanisms so that everybody's sanity is preserved, if only >>> a little bit. >>> >>> Mike >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> homenet mailing list >>> homenet@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> homenet mailing list >> homenet@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet >> >> >
_______________________________________________ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
