[DNS opcode DISCOVER]
On Thu, 11 Jan 2007, Paul Vixie wrote:
yes, it has.
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
... if your L2 supports broadcast but at significant power cost then i
suggest we revive bmanning's old DNS DISCOVER proposal.
I have no problem with that.
yo, bill!
yes?
yes, you.
you mean the DISCOVER ID that is -still- in the RFCED queue?
yes, that
Pars Mutaf wrote:
Who cares what happens at L2? That is not a concern to IP.
But we can build new applications comfortably if we know that the
signaling and energy costs were minimized ?
(I mean regardless of L2 specific details)
With the obvious example of you,
link-local
do you want the code (8.1.2 based and haq'ed into 9.3.1 ) or do you
want to start fresh?
put both up for ftp and share the url's here, and isc among others will take
a look at them.
the text will be pumped out shortly.
thanksly.
My question to Paul Vixie:
you'll also have to cope with networks that aren't using EUI64 or for that
matter aren't using a 64-bit netmask.
Is this an important limitation? (I'm asking the question)
i think so, but it's a subjective matter. we're funded to do some early
DHCPv6 work at
On Thu, Jan 11, 2007 at 05:41:26PM +0100,
Pars Mutaf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 31 lines which said:
Again, *read* draft-ietf-dnsext-mdns-47.txt, the use of unicast is
clearly possible (section 2.4).
But it is still multicast DNS?
I really do not understand you. Try in French
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.
Not unecessary: bad. If I'm correct, it is bad because everyone would
have a
On Fri, Jan 12, 2007 at 11:36:31AM +0200, Pekka Savola wrote:
[DNS opcode DISCOVER]
On Thu, 11 Jan 2007, Paul Vixie wrote:
yes, it has.
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
On Wed, 2007-01-10 at 17:56 +0200, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
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
On Thu, 2007-01-11 at 17:53 +, Paul Vixie wrote:
My question to Paul Vixie:
you'll also have to cope with networks that aren't using EUI64 or for that
matter aren't using a 64-bit netmask.
Is this an important limitation? (I'm asking the question)
i think so, but it's a
10 matches
Mail list logo
