name resolution

Liam Proven lproven at gmail.com
Sat Dec 2 12:47:43 UTC 2017


On 2 December 2017 at 12:59, Xen <list at xenhideout.nl> wrote:
>
> I still feel as though the mDNS thing will never solve the .local issue.
>
> 1) .home is even more in use than .local

[[Citation needed]]

> 2) mDNS doesn't prevent .home or any of the others from leaking

It's not intended to. That's a totally different, unrelated problem.
And not an important one -- I think I've seen one .home network ever,
and it was mine and I had an internal DNS.

> 3) mDNS solves currently at most 20-30% of that part.

Give some evidence of this.

> 4) there is a burden on the root servers which seems to come down to about
> 2x the capacity required if there was no leakage.

Again, unrelated problem. There are other tools for this.

> 5) this is a lot but in the end does not break the internet.

The whole point of the Internet's original design was fault-tolerance
and graceful degradation after damage.

> 6) treating that as something vitally important is rather unpragmatic

No, you just don't understand how and why it works.

> 7) sacrificing local functionality for this non-vital thing is also
> unpragmatic

There is no such sacrifice.

> 8) you could call it an error in judging priorities

Yes. Yours.

> 9) unless you "search" for both .local and whatever other domain you might
> be using locally, you cannot have a unified view of your home network when
> certain devices rely on mDNS and others don't.

You do not understand how it works and why it exists.

> 10) the whole purpose of a local domain is this unified view

Not really, no.

The whole point of mDNS is _when there is no local configuration_.

This is a way for a TCP/IP network _which nobody has configured_ to
function usefully. This is exactly what you were asking for when you
compared it to NetBIOS (a term you _keep_ misusing, because NetBIOS is
an _API_ and you talk about it as if it were a _network protocol_. Do
you know the difference?)

There are 2 levels of it, AIUI.

[A] There is no local config at all. No DHCP, nothing. So machines
assign themselves addresses, according to the standard mechanism; then
they assign themselves a name; then they can find one another using
these names.

[B] There is minimal local config, i.e., each node has an IP address
and a gateway. Then, they assign themselves names, and thus, with no
name resolution configured, they can still find each other by name.

Without this the users would have to use IP addresses, and those can
change, so are not a solid solution -- they break too easily

> 11) I wonder how you mDNS + local domain users do this?

It's very simple.

#1 Do not use domains called ".local". At all, ever. They are created
_ad hoc_ when required. Stay out of their way.

#2 If you have local DNS you don't need mDNS. If your domain is called
".local" then mDNS resolution disables itself. Configure your local
DNS properly so that all machines get the address(es) of the name
server(s) when they get assigned an IP address. Assigning names to
dynamically-addressed nodes is your own problem but you chose to run a
local DNS server so you chose to do the work. Get on with it.

But I don't know why I'm bothering. You'll only write an abusive
response and persist in your ignorance, because you think you
understand and are not willing to learn. So you will keep claiming
your broken understanding and broken method are better.

-- 
Liam Proven • Profile: https://about.me/liamproven
Email: lproven at cix.co.uk • Google Mail/Talk/Plus: lproven at gmail.com
Twitter/Facebook/Flickr: lproven • Skype/LinkedIn/AIM/Yahoo: liamproven
UK: +44 7939-087884 • ČR/WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal: +420 702 829 053



More information about the ubuntu-users mailing list