Subject: RE: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)' to Proposed Standard

From: Jeroen Massar <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 08:51:47 +0200

[for as112 project: maybe add .local into the list of domains??]

On Wed, 2005-08-31 at 14:24 -0700, Christian Huitema wrote:
> > >Windows 98, Windows 2000 and Windows XP do not enable LLMNR by
> default.
> > 
> > Christian, could you please tell us, for each OS mentioned, how to
> enable
> > LLMNR? That would enable everyone participating in this discussion to
> > witness for themselves exactly how it works and what it does.
> 
> You would have to get an experimental implementation of LLMNR from some
> developer site.

This is not 'simply enabling it' :) And then I also wonder if there
actually is an implementation for Win98/Win2k those two being pretty old
and quite unsupported by now I guess... but this besides the point.

> To the best of my knowledge, Microsoft is not shipping
> this code. In these systems, ad hoc names are resolved through NETBIOS.
> The ".local" queries observed in Peter's root servers is most certainly
> not caused by an LLMNR implementation. 

They are most likely done by these nice DSL "router" (NAT :) setups.
Most of these devices have a .local zone configured too. I would not be
surprised if these leaked their queries to the root servers.

That said, if people want to limit the effect of these 'bogus' queries
onto the root servers I suggest that ISP's join into the AS112 project.
Also it would maybe be an idea for AS112 to add .local there?

Greets,
 Jeroen

PS: Who ever named the LLMNR draft 'mdns' isn't that completely
confusing for people looking up the mDNS draft, that is the protocol
that Stuart made? :)

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 09:38:35 +0200

> [for as112 project: maybe add .local into the list of domains??]

(?)  Better add ".local" to a hypothetical 2606bis.  Bye, Frank

---

From: Jeroen Massar <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 09:57:02 +0200

> (?)  Better add ".local" to a hypothetical 2606bis.  Bye, Frank

Full ack.

Greets,
 Jeroen

---

From: Paul Vixie <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 14:58:17 +0000

# That said, if people want to limit the effect of these 'bogus' queries
# onto the root servers I suggest that ISP's join into the AS112 project.
# Also it would maybe be an idea for AS112 to add .local there?

yes, but only when some rfc reserves .local the way rfc1918 reserves the
10.in-addr.arpa and other names handled by AS112.  (IANA will, properly,
refuse to add a .LOCAL NS RR pointing at AS112 or anywhere else until IETF
reserves this name.)

# PS: Who ever named the LLMNR draft 'mdns' isn't that completely
# confusing for people looking up the mDNS draft, that is the protocol
# that Stuart made? :)

yes.

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 17:09:54 +0200

On Thu, Sep 01, 2005 at 02:58:17PM +0000,
 Paul Vixie <[email-masked]> wrote 
 a message of 19 lines which said:

> yes, but only when some rfc reserves .local the way rfc1918 reserves
> the 10.in-addr.arpa and other names handled by AS112.  (IANA will,
> properly, refuse to add a .LOCAL NS RR pointing at AS112 or anywhere
> else until IETF reserves this name.)

In that direction (IANA waiting for IETF), I understand.

But what about the other direction? When IETF reserves a name, is it
always null-routed to AS112? It does not seem so, ".example" (RFC
2606), for instance, is not "delegated".

---

From: Paul Vixie <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 15:38:48 +0000

# But what about the other direction? When IETF reserves a name, is it
# always null-routed to AS112? It does not seem so, ".example" (RFC
# 2606), for instance, is not "delegated".

if as112 is asked, my bet is, as112 will cooperate.

for .example, as112 wasn't asked.  (yet?)