From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Aug 25 03:39:34 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD97616A4E0; Fri, 25 Aug 2006 03:39:34 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from patl+freebsd@volant.org) Received: from smtp.volant.org (gate.volant.org [207.111.218.246]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36DA743D46; Fri, 25 Aug 2006 03:39:34 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from patl+freebsd@volant.org) Received: from ip70-171-56-90.ga.at.cox.net ([70.171.56.90] helo=[192.168.1.121]) by smtp.volant.org with asmtp (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.34 (FreeBSD)) id 1GGSaZ-0003Np-PV; Thu, 24 Aug 2006 20:42:53 -0700 Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 20:38:20 -0400 From: Pat Lashley To: Brooks Davis Message-ID: <09056343DD7153FCD23C29A0@garrett.local> X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.0 (Mac OS X) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scan-Signature: 252dccae112cc0732fabc0b517e5aa93cccc8ba5 X-Spam-User: nobody X-Spam-Score: -4.3 (----) X-Spam-Score-Int: -42 X-Spam-Report: This mail has matched the spam-filter tests listed below. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for details about the specific tests reported. In general, the higher the number of total points, the more likely that it actually is spam. (The 'required' number of points listed below is the arbitrary number above which the message is normally considered spam.) Content analysis details: (-4.3 points total, 5.0 required) 0.1 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 0.1 HTML_FONTCOLOR_RED BODY: HTML font color is red -4.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] 0.4 DATE_IN_PAST_03_06 Date: is 3 to 6 hours before Received: date Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.5 Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org, Doug Barton , Fredrik Lindberg Subject: Re: Zeroconfig and Multicast DNS X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 03:39:34 -0000 > > Except in the case where multiple interfaces are on the same segment for > > redundancy. But in general, I suspect that you are right that using a > > %interface notation is the way to go. > > If you actually want redundancy then you don't want multiple IP > addresses since you'll lose all your connections on the interface that > goes down. What you actually want is etherchannel in which case you end > up with one IP address and one one MAC address. Yeah, but a lot of people are going to to just figure that since their system came with two Ethernet ports, they should just plug them both in. Possibly to two different switches; but often not even that. > > Now, how do we handle the problem in DNS-SD ? The service records just have > > a domain name. > > The resolver needs to be smart enough to resolve the domain name to the > annotated link local address. For the most part this probably isn't > worth worrying about. I'm not sure that we necessarily have enough information to do that. I think we should in the simple cases using only mDNS. Bbut when you start mixing in the possibility of unicast DNS for service advertisement. And the indirect PTR schemes that are suggested for handling things like making services with spaces in their names available to Windows, which doesn't accept spaces. Then the possibility of different machines using the same .local FQDN, each visible on a different interface. And some mDNS server(s) configured to advertise services on behalf of non-DNS-SD-aware hosts. I'm not sure the we're guaranteed enough info. I'd be happy to find out that I'm wrong here; but I just don't have the time to work through all of the potential scenaria. -Pat