To:
"Eric A. Hall" <ehall@ehsco.com>
CC:
dnsop@cafax.se
From:
Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Date:
Tue, 29 Jul 2003 10:58:14 +0859 ()
In-Reply-To:
<3F23CCFB.7000208@ehsco.com> from "Eric A. Hall" at "Jul 27, 200308:00:43 am"
Sender:
owner-dnsop@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: proposal for a compromise on DNS discovery
Eric A. Hall; > > The simple way for home environment is to to let ISPs offer the DNS > > servers for their customer sites, which was impossible with > > addresses with site local scope. > > This entire debate has only convinced me that what we really need is > (real) multicast-capable DNS resolvers and protocols (real DNS, not a > substitute service). Huh? Multicast? It's no solution. As I commented to Message-Id: <200307240446.NAA04398@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> Subject: Re: DNS discovery discussion To: Ralph Droms <rdroms@cisco.com> CC: dnsop@cafax.se Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 13:46:31 +0859 () By assuming large link layer, which violates the CATENET model, many protocols, including but not limited to IPv6 and IGMP, are damaged. Now, we can simply say, broadcast. link local multicast is a poor alternative to broadcast. In addition, DNS with link local multicast/broadcast does not solve any configuration problem. Multicast for domains larger than a link beyond routers requires domain wide broadcast (such as that of data broadcast of DVMRP or core/RP selction of CBT/PIM) or static configuration (such as that of core/RP/source of CBT/PIM/SSM). The confdiguraed data is different site by site, unless you use anycast for core/RP/source. But, no one is sure what will happen with this kind of combination of anycast and multicast that this is not the way to go. Masataka Ohta #---------------------------------------------------------------------- # To unsubscribe, send a message to <dnsop-request@cafax.se>.