name resolution

[Xen]

Tom H schreef op 24-11-2017 10:03:

>>>> Because they decide that.
>>>> 
>>>> This encroachment on personal liberty goes on everywhere.
>>> 
>>> It was an Apple decision not Lennart one.
>> 
>> Apple didn't decide for the rest of the world.
> 
> It did.
> 
> It used SLP for zero config networking in pre OS X releases and in OS
> X 10.0 and 10.1.
> 
> It started using Rendezvous for zero config networking in OS X 10.2,
> renamed it Bonjour in OS X 10.5, and has been using it ever since.

Where does that say "decide for the rest of the world"?

If I use something in my personal life, do I also decide for the rest of 
the world?



> Lennart re-implemented Bonjour, I've forgotten when, as a gpl-licensed
> technology for use in Linux and BSD.

You're still not saying anything relevant.

We already knew that.


>> There is no reason whatsoever that mDNS has to precede DNS.
>> 
>> The only "reason" for that is to prevent leakage onto the internet, 
>> which
>> are queries to the root domain for .local, which returns NULL.
>> 
>> At every stage, this can be blocked by DNS servers, and probably is.
>> 
>> If you put mDNS AFTER dns, it will still work, and not frustrate 
>> operation
>> of the DNS system.
>> 
>> The delay in first accessing the global DNS system and only then mDNS 
>> is
>> minimal.
>> 
>> The reverse is not true; mDNS has a timeout of about 4 seconds or 
>> nearing
>> that.
>> 
>> So by all extents and purposes, you should put mDNS AFTER DNS, unless 
>> of
>> course
> 
> In your use-case, perhaps.
> 
> In the general use-case, all distributions have chosen the logical
> choice of querying mdns before dns.

A choice is not a use case.

Please compare apples with apples.

What is the general use case that mandates that choice, and what makes 
it logical?

I told you how it's not logical. Refute it please.

Or just don't say anything.

Calling it logical doesn't make it logical.

Calling a bear a honey-bird doesn't make a bear a honey-bird.


There is nothing logical about it, or you would have already said it by 
now.



>> YOU WANT TO EXTINGUISH THE USE OF THE LOCAL DOMAIN BY FORCIBLE 
>> MEASURES.
>> 
>> Which they are doing.
>> 
>> Not practical necessity.
>> 
>> Politics.
> 
> Of course, practical necessity. You can plug a laptop into a network
> and see all the network shares immediately, whether they're files or
> printers (whether you can then access them is a different matter).
> That's the meaning of "zeroconf."

This always used to be the case.

It was called "netbios".

Netbios wasn't forced on anyone and didn't use DNS.

And all the same, if "dns" precedes that, the above would still hold 
true in mDNS.

So again, maybe stop explaining dictionary words and start talking 
something real.

You have given no arguments, only "it exists so it must be for a good 
reason".

Linux does not have a new filesharing system other than Samba/CIFS.

There is nothing new here.

This existed in freaking Windows 95.

That's the meaning of "zero conf", you know, that you could go to 
Network and see all the computers in the workgroup, which was always the 
same.

I went to LAN parties and saw dozens upon dozens of computers I could 
access.

Zero configuration you know, in case you need the definition of that.