Subject: ZEROCONF and multicast name resolution

From: Erik Guttman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 11:44:56 +0200 (MEST)

[ post by non-subscriber.  with the massive amount of spam, it is easy to
  miss and therefore delete mis-posts.  so fix subscription addresses! ]

Folks,

The appropriate place to discuss these matters is on the DNSEXT WG
mailing list.  I am cross posting this message to the ZEROCONF WG
list only in order to end the thread which we do not have the 
charter to resolve and redirect discussion to the forum which does.

Keith Moore and various interlocutors have been discussing
multicast name resolution on the ZEROCONF WG mailing list.
I will not summarize that discussion, but I believe the below
captures most of the major points.  If I fail to do justice
to your particular concerns, please expand.

Multicast-Based Name Resolution
-------------------------------

Multicast-based name resolution has been a goal of the ZEROCONF
WG since it was chartered.  The work item, to create a standards
track protocol, has been taken on by the DNSEXT WG.

This effort has been troubled, again because of disagreements
about the functional requirements, but also because of unease
from many involved in DNS standardization at the IETF.  The
requirements expressed in ZEROCONF WG documents were either
not clear, or they were not meet with agreement in the DNSEXT WG.

I believe the goals for multicast name resolution arise from
the following observations.

 - Peer to peer naming protocols exist today, and have for a
   long time (NetBIOS and AppleTalk).  

 - It is possible to use these protocols to resolve names without 
   the use of DNS.  

 - NetBIOS and AppleTalk names can be *the same* as host names in
   the DNS.

 - Some hosts *ALREADY* use alternative naming mechanisms to resolve
   names when DNS is not available (NIS, NetBIOS, AppleTalk, others).
   As has been brought out on the list, this is common practice and in
   no way incorrect with respect to the resolver APIs.

 - There is no IETF standard way to provide this function, over IP.
 
 - It is desirable to retire NetBIOS and AppleTalk for many reasons
   but without a functionally equivalent IETF standard solution, this 
   is not possible.

The ZEROCONF WG has attempted to articulate the requirements for
an IETF standard to allow this name to address (and reverse) 
resolution in environments without DNS support.

There are numerous areas where we run into differences of opinion.

 - What does it mean for hosts to respond to fully qualified 
   domain names which DNS would normally respond to?  Should 
   multicast name resolution use the same namespace as DNS? 

   Some have held that we need a special 'local' namespace,
   while others believe that a host should be able to respond
   to requests for its 'own' name.

 - What we really want is applications that continue to 
   function even when DNS fails or is not present:  http://foo
   will succeed if there is a host which can respond to a
   name resolution request for 'foo' using the non-DNS multicast
   name resoultion protocol.  

   Some seem to hold this is not an appropriate objective.

 - Should multicast name resolution be possible whether even when
   DNS *is* available?  This would prevent 'local' name resolution 
   from ever failing and ensure it always returns consistent
   information.

   Many have asserted that DNS has to be used, exclusively,
   for domain name resolution if it is available as this is the 
   current and expected behavior.

That these issues have not been clearly resolved has left
work on LLMNR (draft-ietf-dnsext-mdns-10.txt) in an uncertain state.  

Let's try to resolve the issues and can come up with a solution which 
will serve the many users of local, unadministered networks.

Thanks and regards,

Erik

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>