[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAPDSy+6R-SWXj3Gh_hQtKPW-+uCYUhrLMO9JsaOhYVLX-pyLRw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2024 20:47:20 -0800
From: David Schinazi <dschinazi.ietf@...il.com>
To: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>
Cc: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: mDNS in musl
Thanks. How would you feel about the following potential configuration
design?
* Add a new configuration option "send_mdns_unicast"
* When true, use the current behavior
* When false, send the query on all non-loopback non-p2p interfaces
* Have send_mdns_unicast default to false
I was thinking through how to pick interfaces, looked up what other mDNS
libraries do, and pretty much all of them don't allow configuring
interfaces, whereas Avahi exposes allow-interfaces and deny-interfaces. I'm
leaning towards not making this configurable to reduce complexity. I think
that anyone interested in that level of config is probably using Avahi
anyway.
Additionally this design has two nice properties: the default behavior is
RFC-compliant, and it means that for my use-case I don't need to change the
config file, which was a big part of my motivation for doing this inside of
musl in the first place :-)
David
On Thu, Mar 7, 2024 at 7:47 PM Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 07, 2024 at 07:34:33PM -0800, David Schinazi wrote:
> > Hmmm. The cleaner option with the new config option and support for
> > querying on all interfaces probably reaches a level of complexity where
> > running a resolver on localhost might be best. And I honestly agree with
> > your point that overloading the config option isn't great design. So
> > perhaps "not doing it at all" is the answer then. I'll think about it
> some
> > more, and discuss it with some mDNS experts at the next IETF meeting in a
> > couple weeks. I'll report back if someone has a clever idea that wouldn't
> > violate the design principles we've discussed in this thread. But if
> not, I
> > want to say thanks for thinking through this with me.
>
> I don't think the conclusion of this thread is necessarily "don't".
> The right form of config option, especially if there's consensus on
> what it should look like, is a very viable path, and the IP_PKTINFO
> thing you found makes the implementation a lot simpler.
>
> Having input from experts on the mDNS side would be most welcome and
> sounds like a good next step to figuring out if this makes sense.
>
> Rich
>
Content of type "text/html" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
