To:
"Eric A. Hall" <ehall@ehsco.com>
CC:
dnsop@cafax.se
From:
Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Date:
Thu, 31 Jul 2003 13:09:36 +0859 ()
In-Reply-To:
<3F27D0AF.7010409@ehsco.com> from "Eric A. Hall" at "Jul 30, 200309:05:35 am"
Sender:
owner-dnsop@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: avoiding proxies
Eric; > >From my point of view, the problem with mandating the use of either of > these solutions is that they would both introduce the use of mandatory > proxies to some extent, and would prevent the application-layer DNS from > working in their absence. This is a bad idea, in my opinion, as it > interferes with several basic design tenets. I'm not sure what you mean "proxy". But, it is not a business of "discovery" (whatever "discovery" means) protocols to relay service to other subnets if a server for the service is not available link locally. On the Internet, the mechanism to relay requests to servers over multiple links is called routing. The mechanism to propagate relaying directions to the servers over multiple links is called a routing protocol. > In the case of RA (as I understand it), the clients and servers couldn't > function without a proxy in any event, even if they were on the same > subnet. In the case of DHCP, a client and server could function in the > absence of a proxy if they were both on the same subnet, but not in other > scenarios. Stick the ~discovery capability into the service itself, and > this is all avoided. ND can be bloated to poorly perform some aspect of routing, of course. Masataka Ohta #---------------------------------------------------------------------- # To unsubscribe, send a message to <dnsop-request@cafax.se>.