That makes perfect sense…
So dns(1) should probably be patched then…?
Marc
> On 2 Jan 2016, at 8:21 pm, Steve Simon wrote:
>
> that would not work, because of how dns(1) presents its interface.
>
> if the file server presented a directory of files then you can merge them.
>
> however dns ha
that would not work, because of how dns(1) presents its interface.
if the file server presented a directory of files then you can merge them.
however dns has a single file that you open, write a request to, and then later
read a reply from.
in this later form you merge the directories you just h
Still getting my head around Plan9 but wouldn’t mounting the unicast and
multicast DNS file servers over the top of each other work? (I assume the order
of the mount (bind) would lead to resolution order… but maybe no unified
responses.
Marc
> On 2 Jan 2016, at 2:42 pm, erik quanstrom wrote:
On Fri Jan 1 19:32:25 PST 2016, m...@boschma.cx wrote:
>
> > On 2 Jan 2016, at 7:05 am, Steve Simon wrote:
> > anyone done any work to implement mDNS / bonjour on plan9?
> >
>
> No, but I have an interest; just starting out with Plan9 :)
>
> > my rough plan is to write a file server which gen
> On 2 Jan 2016, at 7:05 am, Steve Simon wrote:
> anyone done any work to implement mDNS / bonjour on plan9?
>
No, but I have an interest; just starting out with Plan9 :)
> my rough plan is to write a file server which generates /lib/ndb/mdns
> which can be included into your /lib/ndb/local.
>
anyone done any work to implement mDNS / bonjour on plan9?
my rough plan is to write a file server which generates /lib/ndb/mdns
which can be included into your /lib/ndb/local.
I fear the biggest hassle is the clash of UDP port use may mean
mDNS must become part of dns(1) rather than a separate