Hi, > 18 aug 2014 kl. 23:35 skrev Radouch, Zdenek <zrado...@irobot.com>: > > That very detail is *the* most important detail, as it clearly violates the > DNS rules. > You cannot realistically expect the resolver to help you if you ignore the > rules of the game (OK, so perhaps it's not you, but that's irrelevant :-)). > > … > 1. A duplicate name is a clear problem that must be eliminated; don't try > inventing some > magic to "fix" it through routing or any other hacks. > > 2. Be very careful when you say "private" network. This term is abused almost > every single time > it is used. I have spent years trying to teach people why they should not > use it. > My suggestion -- forget the "private" attribute when considering whether > or not your network > architecture will work. > Take this very case -- you have duplicate names in your name space, and > you (or someone else) > thinks it is OK, as long as you label the networks "private". They are not > very private if the nodes > on them share their name space with other networks, are they?
Just wanted to add a note about this: if you’re using Multicast DNS (mDNS) it’s entirely legal and perhaps even expected that the same name will resolve to different hosts on separate links. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multicast_DNS <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multicast_DNS> In basic usage mDNS handles link-local resolution and conflict handling, but it also supports non-local usage models. I don’t think there’s a publicly available mDNS implementation for lwIP, but writing one isn’t terribly complicated. regards, Mikael
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ lwip-users mailing list lwip-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip-users
