Subject: RE: draft-manning-multicast-dns-00.txt

From: Masataka Ohta <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 99 9:10:08 JST

Peter;

> PC boots up and does not know the address of its DNS server.  In trying to
> reach a.foo.bar it multicasts a DNS request and a DNS server is listening to
> the multicast address and responds with a DNS reply.   

Why can't you answer my question?

: Are you saying that it allows for DNS name resolution by a server in
: the absence of preconfiguration of DNS server multicast addresses
: on a DNS client?

Yes, or no?

> cheers, peter

Are you kidding me?

							Masataka Ohta

---

From: Peter Ford <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 13:30:52 -0700

scenario:

cheers, peter

-----Original Message-----
From: Masataka Ohta [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 1999 5:50 AM
To: Peter Ford
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: draft-manning-multicast-dns-00.txt

Peter;

> 2) allow for DNS name resolution by a server in the absence of
> preconfiguration of DNS server addresses on a DNS client ( note that this
> behaviour is described in RFC 1123).  
> 
> Both of these goals can be nicely addressed with multicast DNS.

Huh?

Are you saying that it allows for DNS name resolution by a server in
the absence of preconfiguration of DNS server multicast addresses
on a DNS client?
   I
> When dealing with these sorts of issues, I keep a recommendation Postel
made
> to me several years ago in mind:  think about how this would work in the
> IPv6 world, and then bring it back into IPv4.

If IPv6 anycast addresses had ever worked...

							Masataka Ohta

---

From: "Matt Crawford" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Apr 1999 14:20:49 -0500

> the multicast address and responds with a DNS reply.   

scaling considerations:

The PC stashes away the unicast address of the responding server, so
it doesn't need to keep bothering the (possibly large) local network
with multicasts.

security considerations:

The first server to respond was a rogue.  Now the PC's DNS
information is captive.

solution:

??

Well, it's hard to imagine security with no configuration, isn't it?