nanog mailing list archives
Re: The End-To-End Internet (was Re: Blocking MX query)
From: Mark Andrews <marka () isc org>
Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2012 16:01:10 +1000
In message <108454.1346989445 () turing-police cc vt edu>, valdis.kletnieks () vt edu writes:
--==_Exmh_1346989445_1993P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 08:30:12 +1000, Mark Andrews said:In message <85250.1346959671 () turing-police cc vt edu>, valdis.kletnieks () vt edu writes:My PS3 may want to talk to the world, but I have no control over Comcast's DNS.What point are you trying to make? Comcast's servers support SRV as do all general purpose name servers. For HTTP at least you need to be backwards compatible so there is no reason not to add SRV support.Sure, Comcast's servers will happily support an SRV entry for my PS3. However, Comcast's business processes don't support a way for me to request said SRV record be listed. Heck, I don't even get a static IP with my current service package. ;)
There are plenty of companies that will serve whatever you want them to serve.
Now *I* have the technical chops to talk to the guys at dyndns.org or other providers and get an SRV entry created under some domain name pointing back at my IP address. However, Joe Sixpack doesn't really have that option. And unless you figure out a scalable and universal way for Joe Sixpack's Xbox or PS3 or whatever to request an SRV entry saying that the PS3 wants to do service "foobar" on port 34823, you can't use SRV like that.
There is NOTHING stopping Sony adding code to the PS3 to perform dynamic updates to add the records. We have a well established protocol to do this securely. 100's of millions of records get updated daily using this protocol in the corporate environment. This is NOTHING Joe Sixpack can't do with a smidgen of help on behalf of product vendors. Home router vendors already have code to do this. domain name for the PS account name password account name and password form the TSIG information to secure the dynamic update.
A better proposal would probably be having the NAT itself run a 'portmap' type service on a well known port like 111. Except that still doesn't do a very good job of disambiguating two instances of "foobar" behind a NAT...
-- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka () isc org
Current thread:
- Re: The End-To-End Internet (was Re: Blocking MX query), (continued)
- Re: The End-To-End Internet (was Re: Blocking MX query) Owen DeLong (Sep 06)
- Re: The End-To-End Internet (was Re: Blocking MX query) Eliot Lear (Sep 10)
- Re: The End-To-End Internet (was Re: Blocking MX query) Owen DeLong (Sep 11)
- Re: The End-To-End Internet (was Re: Blocking MX query) Masataka Ohta (Sep 11)
- Re: The End-To-End Internet (was Re: Blocking MX query) valdis . kletnieks (Sep 06)
- Re: The End-To-End Internet (was Re: Blocking MX query) Mark Andrews (Sep 06)
- Re: The End-To-End Internet (was Re: Blocking MX query) valdis . kletnieks (Sep 06)
- Re: The End-To-End Internet (was Re: Blocking MX query) Sean Harlow (Sep 06)
- Re: The End-To-End Internet (was Re: Blocking MX query) Owen DeLong (Sep 06)
- Re: The End-To-End Internet (was Re: Blocking MX query) Masataka Ohta (Sep 06)
- Re: The End-To-End Internet (was Re: Blocking MX query) Mark Andrews (Sep 06)
- Re: The End-To-End Internet (was Re: Blocking MX query) valdis . kletnieks (Sep 07)
- Re: The End-To-End Internet (was Re: Blocking MX query) Rich Kulawiec (Sep 08)