Subject: Re: On Scaling of DNS-SD

From: Stuart Cheshire <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 20:20:30 -0700

>the problem is in the notion of "where a mini-DNS server is present" -
>it can be present for some nodes in an application and absent for others.

Can we delete the word "mini" from all this discussion?

A DNS server is a DNS server.

I used the term "mini-DNS server" in my original posting to refer to code 
size and complexity, not protocol and behaviour. Now everyone is acting 
as if a mini-DNS server behaves differently than a normal DNS server. It 
doesn't. The only difference is that the DNS server embedded in your $99 
home gateway doesn't have to be as sophisticated as BIND 9, because no 
one is expecting to buy a $99 home gateway and use it as the 
authoritative server for -- to pick an example -- the entire "com." 
domain.

In all past and future references to "mini-DNS", please ignore the word 
"mini". Any assertions that, "Mini-DNS doesn't work because of x," should 
be read as saying equally that, "DNS doesn't work because of x." They are 
the same thing, and I'm sorry I caused this confusion.

Stuart Cheshire <[email-masked]>
 * Wizard Without Portfolio, Apple Computer
 * Chairman, IETF ZEROCONF
 * www.stuartcheshire.org

---

From: Stuart Cheshire <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 20:47:21 -0700

>So the problem will right itself, though the timescale on which
>this occurs might be an issue (I've not found 5 minutes to be a
>satisfactory time between attempts to find a home gateway, in my
>experience).

Agreed. I've thought of proposing a DHCP announcement packet that is sent 
when a DHCP server comes on-line, which would let the clients reconfigure 
immediately and reduce this delay, but we have so much struggle getting 
agreement on even the simplest things that I don't have the energy to be 
taking on more work right now.