> My greatest concern is that the document as it stands is likely to > cause a large number of bogus DNS queries. If the protocol is widely > adopted, it seems probable that many clients will have LLMNR enabled > on an interface in a situation where a DNS server has been configured > (as described in section 2). In that case, every LLMNR query will > entail (possibly more than) one DNS query, because of the provision, > "All attempts to resolve the name via DNS on all interfaces have > failed after exhausting the searchlist." Such DNS queries will become > commonplace if the protocol is widely adopted and widely used. This > feature of the design appears to increase the burden on the entire > Internet infrastructure in order to support unshared infrastructure. Uh, no. LLMNR does not create additional DNS queries. Applications do not issue LLMNR requests, they issue name resolution requests. When a name resolution request is issued, the current behavior is to submit the request to the DNS, possibly applying a "search list". LLMNR does not change that. LLMNR adds an additional transaction at the end of the search list, falling back to local multicast resolution if the infrastructure could not resolve the query authoritatively. The part about multiple interfaces is also the current behavior in multi-homed hosts. In theory, DNS requests sent to different servers over different interfaces should all be equivalent. In practice, they are not. Some names can be resolved through some interfaces, and not through others. To be sure, systems end up sending the requests on multiple interfaces. -- Christian Huitema _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf