Subject: Re: [midcom] WG scope/deliverables

From: [email-masked] (Sean Doran)
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 10:55:58 +0100 (CET)

Eliot Lear writes:

| oHOST wants to communicate with iHOST through the internet, but iHOST is
| not addressable. 

You mean iHost's own idea of its own address is not the same as 
oHost's idea of iHost's address, yes?   oHost surely thinks iHost's
address is the address of the outside interface of the middlebox.

| That requires a middlebox to establish an A record for
| iHOST, and bind a given address / port translation.
|
|...
| 
| Messy messy.

RFC 2782 makes it less messy messy, and indeed, the SRV RRs should
be issued in a way that mirrors what the middle box offers to the "outside".
There's nothing particularly new in having the middle box doing DNS for
subdomains which have hosts living on the "inside".

	Sean.

_______________________________________________
midcom mailing list
[email-masked]
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/midcom

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 08:12:51 -0500

> address is the address of the outside interface of the middlebox.

yes, but in general iHost doesn't know which view oHost has - 
whether it be inside or outside of the NAT 
(and this is a simplistic view with only one NAT)

> subdomains which have hosts living on the "inside".

SRV RRs only apply to applications which are specified to use them.

Keith

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 10:06:03 -0800

The argument is one of complexity.  And while you mention subdomains, if
you're a provider, GFL trying to manage all that.

But... I did omit the idea of using SRV records, which solves the "all I
got is this stinking packet" problem without a hint as to what it is
meant for, or with everyone wanting to use port 80, and all I got is
this one address.
--
Eliot Lear
[email-masked]