> > why, under $DIETIES green earth would you want to push a dead
> > technology? The IESG is dead-set against this.
>
> because the IESG has turned over N times during those 8 years, and the idea
> is still solid and useful and interesting, and the current proposed RFC is
> experimental,
> > > L2 broadcast will have to work in order to support ARP. if your L2 does
> > > not support broadcast at all then i don't know what to suggest beyond some
> > > kind of distinguished destination address that operates a location
> > > brokerage for other services. if your L2 supports broadcast
Pars Mutaf writes:
> On Thu, 2007-01-11 at 09:40 -0500, Thomas Narten wrote:
> > Pars Mutaf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > 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
On Thu, 2007-01-11 at 15:55 +0100, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 11, 2007 at 03:30:26PM +0100,
> Pars Mutaf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> a message of 81 lines which said:
>
> > I used the term .local with no particular reason. If recent advances
> > showed that it is unnecessary.
>
>
JAmes, yes, it's a solution in search of a problem. There are problems
in search of solutions too although not so apparent now. For example ND
over tunnel interfaces, etc.
For below items: (1) yes, IID as ll addresses may break legacy systems
but then one could define new option Target 'Virtual
On Thu, 2007-01-11 at 09:40 -0500, Thomas Narten wrote:
> Pars Mutaf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > 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, no
Alexandru Petrescu writes:
> If a ppp peer negotiates an Interface ID and puts it in the Neighbour
> Cache attached to the ppp0 entry, won't break anything. When displaying
> the NC the entry simply won't show up empty.
Yes, it will break something.
- Such a system will send Neighbor Advertise
Pars Mutaf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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.
Who cares what happens at L2? That is
Hi all,
Thank you all for your comments!
Alex and Julien: thanks for clarifications on 16ng.
Stephane and Brian Carpenter: I used the term .local with
no particular reason. If recent advances showed that it is
unnecessary. That's OK for me. I'm not even sure if my
proposal needs to be "local".
Pars Mutaf wrote:
> This threat is probably another good reason for not allowing
> multicast.
Wrong.
As I already stated reasons, there is no point not allowing
broadcast.
Masataka Ohta
--
James Carlson wrote:
Alexandru Petrescu writes:
Finally, link-layer addresses have a tight relationship with
what goes in the last 64bits of an address. On ppp (and maybe
others?) links there's no link-layer address but there's means
to have something go into the last 64bits. So could we
c
Multicast DNS does not imply the Bad (tm) ".local"! Read
draft-ietf-dnsext-mdns-47.txt (approved by the IESG on 31 Oct 2006 and
stucked in RFC editor queue since, for unknown reasons).
It isn't stuck as far as I can see, it's just a member of the queue.
And indeed, as far as I know, there is no
Hi Pars,
On Wednesday 10 January 2007 11:06, Pars Mutaf wrote:
> (IPv6 WG CCed sorry all for cross-posting)
>
> Dear namedroppers,
>
> 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
13 matches
Mail list logo
