Re: Name ownership and LLMNR (Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution...)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 1-sep-2005, at 15:14, Tony Finch wrote:

If I have a name that I'm certain I own (this box is, with high certainty, the only one in the world named HALVESTR-W2K02.emea.cisco.com), LLMNR allows me to assert that name on a LAN even when the DNS is not available, or when that
name is not currently asserted in the DNS.

This kind of naming is not possible for ad-hoc networks without Internet
connectivity and without any domain name registration.

Apparently, LLMNR tries to remedy this situation by making it possible. However, the protocol doesn't address the issue of name ownership. We actually have protocols that assert name ownership more or less as a by product: x.509 and the like.

An LLMNR that requires responders to have an x.509 certificate for the name they're claiming to hold would at least solve this issue. Obviously such a protocol would be utterly useless in any kind of unmanaged environment where local lookups are most needed.

_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]