Pars Mutaf writes:
Dot-local DNS is also very useful in MANETs. However, you have
to flood the network to resolve a name. This consumes bandwidth
and energy in the whole network.
It isn't just multicast DNS that depends on the use of multicast --
there are many protocols (including neighbor
Le mercredi 10 janvier 2007 17:14, Pars Mutaf a écrit :
So, the proposal is that if the hash collides for different names,
then johnsmith.local must rename himself, right?
Right. Please let me know if you see a problem with this.
My understanding of James remarks is that your proposal
Pars Mutaf wrote:
On Wed, 2007-01-10 at 08:15 -0500, James Carlson wrote:
Pars Mutaf writes:
Dot-local DNS is also very useful in MANETs. However, you have to
flood the network to resolve a name. This consumes bandwidth and
energy in the whole network.
It isn't just multicast DNS that
Thank you for informing me of the re-write. A few obvious editorial
corrections:
EMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The former machine hasn't existed since circa 1994, and the latter since
circa 1998. Easy Googling has given reviewers one of my half dozen
active emails
...
These problems make me think that dot-local usage is not as general
as it should be in IPv6. What about this approach?
It works exactly as multicast DNS, except that there is no multicast.
1. Let the responder's DNS name be johnsmith.local. The responder
configures a name-based
Pars Mutaf wrote:
I believe that dot-local DNS (also called multicast DNS) will be
even more useful in the future. However, I suspect that there is
a problem. For example, in WiMax, a cellular standard, nodes cannot
L2 multicast.
As was learned with the abandoned attempt of NBMA, link
On Wed, Jan 10, 2007 at 11:06:38AM +0100,
Pars Mutaf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 52 lines which said:
I believe that dot-local DNS (also called multicast DNS)
Multicast DNS does not imply the Bad (tm) .local! Read
draft-ietf-dnsext-mdns-47.txt (approved by the IESG on 31 Oct 2006
Pars Mutaf writes:
My answer is that installing DNS in a router is going to far.
Once you step off the cliff of altering the protocols to suit the
limitations, it's probably hard to know where to stop. :-
So, the proposal is that if the hash collides for different names,
then
