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

From: Bill Woodcock <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 4 Apr 1999 10:59:42 -0700 (PDT)

> there is no reason not to use administratively scoped
    > unicast addresses as the well known addresses of default
    > DNS servers

That's sort of orthogonal to this issue, though...  People could
do that today, if they felt like it.  That doesn't require any
protocol changes, just operational ones.

I don't think you want every laser printer in the world to ship 
with the same IP address, the "laser printer administrative
unicast address" just so you'd be able to find laser printers, do
you?  I mean, certainly it's feasible, but isn't that even scarier
than this?
			-Bill

---

From: Masataka Ohta <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 99 9:35:37 JST

Bill Woodcock;
> protocol changes, just operational ones.

If you are uninterested in operational issues, forget to modify
existing protocols to ease the operation.

> you?

In the real world, such devices have a few bits of switches (you
can find them on your IR-controlled VTRs), with which the devices
can choose appropriate addresses among a few candidate well-known
addresses.

That's more than enough for the small environment where
operational effort can be minimized.

> I mean, certainly it's feasible, but isn't that even scarier
> than this?

Look at the real world.

Look at the real world multicast.

Multicast is not even feasible. Some broadcast a lot with no good
reasons. Multicast protocols with less (but, still considerable
amount of) broadcast (PIM/CBT, I mean) need a lot of configurations
of their own.

If I have only one laser printer, I don't want to see it
bother to join a multicast group.

If I have a lot of laser printers, I don't want to see
response packet implosion caused by multicast query.

							Masataka Ohta