On Mon, 2005-06-13 at 14:10, Bryan J. Smith wrote:
> > Does anything exist that has that 'basic logic'? The legacy forms
> > work and scale worldwide because the authority to use names is
> > carefully delegated. If two self-issued names are broadcast on
> > the same network, who wins? What if they are on different subnets
> > and can't see each other but you try to integrate them with such
> > a tool? What if they normally live on different networks but are
> > mobile and eventually collide? I'd really prefer not to let anyone's
> > laptop claim to be the company email server and get away with it.
>
> Which is why you need a _centralized_ layer 2 + layer 3 server to
> prevent this. If it is the centralized DNS and WINS, then all Windows
> and UNIX nodes trust it first and foremost, even if a rogue NetBIOS
> node is braodcasting.
>
> The logic of the server would not only not proxy such a node, but it
> would quickly report its MAC address as a "problem."
But if it 'knows' which of two nodes claiming a name is the correct
one, then it must have been preconfigured in a way that wouldn't
have required listening to the broadcast in the first place. How
does centralizing the service help resolve a conflict correctly?
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
