ietf-request,您好!
======= 2005-09-02 00:10:50 您在来信中写道:=======
Send Ietf mailing list submissions to
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
ietf-request(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
You can reach the person managing the list at
ietf-owner(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Ietf digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)'
to Proposed Standard (Tony Finch)
2. Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)'
to Proposed Standard (Paul Vixie)
3. Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)'
to Proposed Standard (Stephane Bortzmeyer)
4. Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)'
to Proposed Standard (Paul Vixie)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 14:55:17 +0100
From: Tony Finch <dot(_at_)dotat(_dot_)at>
Subject: Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)'
to Proposed Standard
To: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch(_at_)muada(_dot_)com>
Cc: Keith Moore <moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu>, IETF General Discussion
Mailing
List <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Message-ID:
<Pine(_dot_)LNX(_dot_)4(_dot_)60(_dot_)0509011452090(_dot_)13347(_at_)hermes-1(_dot_)csi(_dot_)cam(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Thu, 1 Sep 2005, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
I don't understand how you can be in favor of LLMNR while at the same time
being opposed to confusion between local and global ("DNS") names. In theory,
I suppose it's possible that the information available over LLMNR and the
information available from the DNS are 100% consistent.
Is LLMNR supposed to work with RFC 3927 IPv4 link-local address
autoconfiguration? In which case it's also theoretically impossible for
LLMNR to be consistent with the DNS. (Consistency would require dynamic
DNS updates, and if they work your DHCP server should also be working, in
which case you won't have an RFC 3927 address.)
Tony.
--
f.a.n.finch <dot(_at_)dotat(_dot_)at> http://dotat.at/
BISCAY: WEST 5 OR 6 BECOMING VARIABLE 3 OR 4. SHOWERS AT FIRST. MODERATE OR
GOOD.
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 14:58:17 +0000
From: Paul Vixie <paul(_at_)vix(_dot_)com>
Subject: Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)'
to Proposed Standard
To: Jeroen Massar <jeroen(_at_)unfix(_dot_)org>
Cc: Christian Huitema <huitema(_at_)windows(_dot_)microsoft(_dot_)com>,
Stuart Cheshire
<cheshire(_at_)apple(_dot_)com>, ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org,
112(_at_)root-servers(_dot_)org
Message-ID: <20050901145817(_dot_)CBF0D13CDF(_at_)sa(_dot_)vix(_dot_)com>
# That said, if people want to limit the effect of these 'bogus' queries
# onto the root servers I suggest that ISP's join into the AS112 project.
# Also it would maybe be an idea for AS112 to add .local there?
yes, but only when some rfc reserves .local the way rfc1918 reserves the
10.in-addr.arpa and other names handled by AS112. (IANA will, properly,
refuse to add a .LOCAL NS RR pointing at AS112 or anywhere else until IETF
reserves this name.)
# PS: Who ever named the LLMNR draft 'mdns' isn't that completely
# confusing for people looking up the mDNS draft, that is the protocol
# that Stuart made? :)
yes.
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 17:09:54 +0200
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer(_at_)nic(_dot_)fr>
Subject: Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)'
to Proposed Standard
To: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org, 112(_at_)root-servers(_dot_)org
Message-ID: <20050901150954(_dot_)GA30610(_at_)nic(_dot_)fr>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Thu, Sep 01, 2005 at 02:58:17PM +0000,
Paul Vixie <paul(_at_)vix(_dot_)com> wrote
a message of 19 lines which said:
yes, but only when some rfc reserves .local the way rfc1918 reserves
the 10.in-addr.arpa and other names handled by AS112. (IANA will,
properly, refuse to add a .LOCAL NS RR pointing at AS112 or anywhere
else until IETF reserves this name.)
In that direction (IANA waiting for IETF), I understand.
But what about the other direction? When IETF reserves a name, is it
always null-routed to AS112? It does not seem so, ".example" (RFC
2606), for instance, is not "delegated".
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 15:38:48 +0000
From: Paul Vixie <paul(_at_)vix(_dot_)com>
Subject: Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)'
to Proposed Standard
To: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer(_at_)nic(_dot_)fr>
Cc: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org, 112(_at_)root-servers(_dot_)org
Message-ID: <20050901153848(_dot_)72D7213921(_at_)sa(_dot_)vix(_dot_)com>
# But what about the other direction? When IETF reserves a name, is it
# always null-routed to AS112? It does not seem so, ".example" (RFC
# 2606), for instance, is not "delegated".
if as112 is asked, my bet is, as112 will cooperate.
for .example, as112 wasn't asked. (yet?)
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
End of Ietf Digest, Vol 17, Issue 4
***********************************
.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
致
礼!
史敦发
010-62237300-1227
shidunfa(_at_)126(_dot_)com
2005-09-04
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf