ietf-request,您好！ ======= 2005-09-02 00:10:50 您在来信中写道：======= >Send Ietf mailing list submissions to > ietf@xxxxxxxx > >To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf >or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > ietf-request@xxxxxxxx > >You can reach the person managing the list at > ietf-owner@xxxxxxxx > >When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >than "Re: Contents of Ietf digest..." > > >Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)' > to Proposed Standard (Tony Finch) > 2. Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)' > to Proposed Standard (Paul Vixie) > 3. Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)' > to Proposed Standard (Stephane Bortzmeyer) > 4. Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)' > to Proposed Standard (Paul Vixie) > > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Message: 1 >Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 14:55:17 +0100 >From: Tony Finch <dot@xxxxxxxx> >Subject: Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)' > to Proposed Standard >To: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@xxxxxxxxx> >Cc: Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxx>, IETF General Discussion Mailing > List <ietf@xxxxxxxx> >Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.60.0509011452090.13347@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII > >On Thu, 1 Sep 2005, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: >> >> I don't understand how you can be in favor of LLMNR while at the same time >> being opposed to confusion between local and global ("DNS") names. In theory, >> I suppose it's possible that the information available over LLMNR and the >> information available from the DNS are 100% consistent. > >Is LLMNR supposed to work with RFC 3927 IPv4 link-local address >autoconfiguration? In which case it's also theoretically impossible for >LLMNR to be consistent with the DNS. (Consistency would require dynamic >DNS updates, and if they work your DHCP server should also be working, in >which case you won't have an RFC 3927 address.) > >Tony. >-- >f.a.n.finch <dot@xxxxxxxx> http://dotat.at/ >BISCAY: WEST 5 OR 6 BECOMING VARIABLE 3 OR 4. SHOWERS AT FIRST. MODERATE OR >GOOD. > > > >------------------------------ > >Message: 2 >Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 14:58:17 +0000 >From: Paul Vixie <paul@xxxxxxx> >Subject: Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)' > to Proposed Standard >To: Jeroen Massar <jeroen@xxxxxxxxx> >Cc: Christian Huitema <huitema@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Stuart Cheshire > <cheshire@xxxxxxxxx>, ietf@xxxxxxxx, 112@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >Message-ID: <20050901145817.CBF0D13CDF@xxxxxxxxxx> > ># That said, if people want to limit the effect of these 'bogus' queries ># onto the root servers I suggest that ISP's join into the AS112 project. ># Also it would maybe be an idea for AS112 to add .local there? > >yes, but only when some rfc reserves .local the way rfc1918 reserves the >10.in-addr.arpa and other names handled by AS112. (IANA will, properly, >refuse to add a .LOCAL NS RR pointing at AS112 or anywhere else until IETF >reserves this name.) > ># PS: Who ever named the LLMNR draft 'mdns' isn't that completely ># confusing for people looking up the mDNS draft, that is the protocol ># that Stuart made? :) > >yes. > > > >------------------------------ > >Message: 3 >Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 17:09:54 +0200 >From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@xxxxxx> >Subject: Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)' > to Proposed Standard >To: ietf@xxxxxxxx, 112@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >Message-ID: <20050901150954.GA30610@xxxxxx> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > >On Thu, Sep 01, 2005 at 02:58:17PM +0000, > Paul Vixie <paul@xxxxxxx> wrote > a message of 19 lines which said: > >> yes, but only when some rfc reserves .local the way rfc1918 reserves >> the 10.in-addr.arpa and other names handled by AS112. (IANA will, >> properly, refuse to add a .LOCAL NS RR pointing at AS112 or anywhere >> else until IETF reserves this name.) > >In that direction (IANA waiting for IETF), I understand. > >But what about the other direction? When IETF reserves a name, is it >always null-routed to AS112? It does not seem so, ".example" (RFC >2606), for instance, is not "delegated". > > > >------------------------------ > >Message: 4 >Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 15:38:48 +0000 >From: Paul Vixie <paul@xxxxxxx> >Subject: Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)' > to Proposed Standard >To: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@xxxxxx> >Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx, 112@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >Message-ID: <20050901153848.72D7213921@xxxxxxxxxx> > ># But what about the other direction? When IETF reserves a name, is it ># always null-routed to AS112? It does not seem so, ".example" (RFC ># 2606), for instance, is not "delegated". > >if as112 is asked, my bet is, as112 will cooperate. > >for .example, as112 wasn't asked. (yet?) > > > >------------------------------ > >_______________________________________________ >Ietf mailing list >Ietf@xxxxxxxx >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > >End of Ietf Digest, Vol 17, Issue 4 >*********************************** > >. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = 致 礼！ 史敦发 010-62237300-1227 shidunfa@xxxxxxx 2005-09-04
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf