Re: [homenet] Updating DNS [was: How many people have installed the homenet code?]

Tim Chown wrote: On 25 Apr 2016, at 03:39, Ted Lemon > wrote: On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 12:29 PM, Juliusz Chroboczek > wrote: > Juliusz, the problem is that existing home network devices that do > DNS-based service discov

Re: [homenet] Updating DNS [was: How many people have installed the homenet code?]

Hi Ray, On 11 May 2016, at 15:01, Ray Hunter (v6ops) mailto:v6...@globis.net>> wrote: Tim Chown wrote: On 25 Apr 2016, at 03:39, Ted Lemon mailto:mel...@fugue.com>> wrote: On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 12:29 PM, Juliusz Chroboczek mailto:j...@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr>> wrote: > Juliusz, the proble

Re: [homenet] Updating DNS [was: How many people have installed the homenet code?]

On 11 May 2016, at 15:01, Ray Hunter (v6ops) > wrote: Tim Chown wrote: On 25 Apr 2016, at 03:39, Ted Lemon > wrote: On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 12:29 PM, Juliusz Chroboczek > wrote: > Juliusz, the proble

Re: [homenet] Updating DNS [was: How many people have installed the homenet code?]

> Bonjour is (roughly) based on Appletalk AFAIK. I've got nothing against > Appletalk Phase II, so if Bonjour was extended to provide an equivalent > function to Appletalk Phase II Zone Information Protocol = ZIP then I'd be > happier. That would cover concerns on non-overlapping name spaces. And >

Re: [homenet] Updating DNS [was: How many people have installed the homenet code?]

On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 12:29 PM, Juliusz Chroboczek < j...@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> wrote: > > I don't like the hybrid proxy model either. It promises the union of > > the problems and intersection of the functionality. Proxying flies in > > the face of the trend of smart devices and dumb net

Re: [homenet] Updating DNS [was: How many people have installed the homenet code?]

>>> Proxying flies in the face of the trend of smart devices and dumb >>> networks. > Be that as it may, Homenet in general flies in the face of that trend. Not sure. If you look at HNCP, the only intelligence there is a bunch of election algorithms (prefix assignment is just election with non-l

Re: [homenet] Updating DNS [was: How many people have installed the homenet code?]

I tend to think of routing protocols and election protocols as "intelligent", but perhaps you meant something different... :) E.g., did you mean "stateful?" On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 12:47 PM, Juliusz Chroboczek < j...@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> wrote: > >>> Proxying flies in the face of the trend

Re: [homenet] Updating DNS [was: How many people have installed the homenet code?]

> I tend to think of routing protocols and election protocols as "intelligent", > but perhaps you meant something different... :) > E.g., did you mean "stateful?" No (HNCP manages quite a bit of hard state, unfortunately). I think I meant "able to interpret higher-layer data", but I'm no longer

Re: [homenet] Updating DNS [was: How many people have installed the homenet code?]

Hm, okay. So perhaps you think of DNS data as being higher-layer than routing data and numbering data? On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 1:00 PM, Juliusz Chroboczek < j...@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> wrote: > > I tend to think of routing protocols and election protocols as > "intelligent", > > but perhaps

Re: [homenet] Updating DNS [was: How many people have installed the homenet code?]

Ted Lemon 11 May 2016 18:37 > I don't like the hybrid proxy model either. It promises the union of > the problems and intersection of the functionality. Proxying flies in > the face of the trend of smart devices and dumb networks. Very well put.

Re: [homenet] Updating DNS [was: How many people have installed the homenet code?]

DNS update is pretty simple. Any problem with using that? I think you may be slightly conclusing "authoritative" and "primary." There is no need to elect authoritative servers--just make them secondary to the elected primary. You can't have two primaries with stock DNS--that's probably the big

Re: [homenet] Updating DNS [was: How many people have installed the homenet code?]

>> No (HNCP manages quite a bit of hard state, unfortunately). I think >> I meant "able to interpret higher-layer data", but I'm no longer sure ;-) > So perhaps you think of DNS data as being higher-layer than routing data > and numbering data? Do you not? -- Juliusz ___

Re: [homenet] Updating DNS [was: How many people have installed the homenet code?]

No. Why are names different than numbers? On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 2:13 PM, Juliusz Chroboczek < j...@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> wrote: > >> No (HNCP manages quite a bit of hard state, unfortunately). I think > >> I meant "able to interpret higher-layer data", but I'm no longer sure > ;-) > > >

Re: [homenet] Updating DNS [was: How many people have installed the homenet code?]

>>> So perhaps you think of DNS data as being higher-layer than routing data >>> and numbering data? >> Do you not? > No. Why are names different than numbers? I should be able to renumber without telling my users. -- Juliusz ___ homenet mailing list

Re: [homenet] Updating DNS [was: How many people have installed the homenet code?]

Juliusz Chroboczek 11 May 2016 18:29 Bonjour is (roughly) based on Appletalk AFAIK. I've got nothing against Appletalk Phase II, so if Bonjour was extended to provide an equivalent function to Appletalk Phase II Zone Information Protocol = ZIP then I'd b

Re: [homenet] Updating DNS [was: How many people have installed the homenet code?]

Spoken like a network administrator. Of course, homenets have to be able to renumber, but there is no "I" involved. So the naming protocol has to work with renumbering; ideally though intra-homenet communications would use the homenet's ULA, and so renumbering wouldn't happen other than when tw

Re: [homenet] Updating DNS [was: How many people have installed the homenet code?]

> So the naming protocol has to work with renumbering; ideally though > intra-homenet communications would use the homenet's ULA, That's not the point I'm making. I mean that numbers are not user-visible, while names obviously are. That would seem to imply that naming is at a higher level than e

Re: [homenet] Updating DNS [was: How many people have installed the homenet code?]

SIG(0) works fine for DDNS once you have a KEY record installed in the DNS. KEY can be installed on a "add if name does not exist basis" for forward zone and add if TCP self (owner name is the matching in-addr.arpa/ip6.arpa name of the TCP source address) is true for the reverse zones. This requ

Re: [homenet] Updating DNS [was: How many people have installed the homenet code?]

You don't even need SIG(0) to get the level of security that mDNS provides. And SIG(0) doesn't work right now, because it relies on an older version of DNSSEC keys. Remember the flag day? On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 8:33 PM, Mark Andrews wrote: > > SIG(0) works fine for DDNS once you have a KEY

Re: [homenet] Updating DNS [was: How many people have installed the homenet code?]

In message , Ted Lemon writes: > You don't even need SIG(0) to get the level of security that mDNS provides. > And SIG(0) doesn't work right now, because it relies on an older version > of DNSSEC keys. Remember the flag day? DNSSEC depends on DNSKEY as of RFC 403[345] SIG(0) depends on KEY.

Re: [homenet] Updating DNS [was: How many people have installed the homenet code?]

Hm. Ok, good news. Makes the job a wee bit easier. On May 11, 2016 10:57 PM, "Mark Andrews" wrote: In message , Ted Lemon writes: > You don't even need SIG(0) to get the level of security that mDNS provides. > And SIG(0) doesn't work right now, because it relies on an older version > of DNSSEC k