Thanks for your reply, Daniel. > If I understand correctly the question is why do we have a Homenet Naming > Authority responsible to outsource the Homenet Zone to the Public > Authoritative > Servers ( Front End architecture) instead of having each device updating their > data directly to the Public Authoritative Servers (End to end architecture) ?
Yes, that's a good summary. > * The End to end architecture does not seem to be scalable in term of > management I don't think that this argument is relevant to Homenet. I'd expect most devices in a home network to have no externally visible name. The number of externally named devices is 0 for the typical user, and just 3 for a rather extreme geek (NAS, boom box, and game server). I'm sure we can agree that the end-to-end architecture scales well beyond 3 devices. > The architecture where all devices directly update their data to the Public > Authoritative Servers requires these devices being configured appropriately > with authentication credentials, This is also the case with the proxying architecture: devices are by default not announced to the global DNS, and per-device configuration is needed for devices that want to be named globally. > With the architecture proposed, all this information is centralized to the HNA > and easier to secure. The devices that need to have globally visible names are the secure ones (the NAS, the music collection, the game server). The insecure devices are exactly the ones that should not have a global name. Or are you assuming that I'll want to publish each lightbulb in the global DNS? > * End-to-end Architecture does not provide internal and external views. I don't see how. The end-to-end protocol only publishes names of devices that have been explicitly configured to do so, just like the proxying algorithm. > In addition its design imply that everything is published to the > Internet, and the naming within the homenet hardly work without > connectivity. I don't see how. Homenet-local naming is not impacted by how we publish externelly-visible names. > * End-to-end architecture is hard to get adopted. > DNS update seems the only standard way to update DNS data. There's no reason why DNS updates couldn't happen end-to-end. I am not discussing the exact encoding here, what I'm discussing is the need for a proxy. > Currently most homenet architectures have a CPE that assigns ip addresses to > devices. This statement is in clear contradiction with the Homenet architecture. -- Juliusz _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
