You might get a kick out of this expired but soon-to-be-revived document in DNSSD: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sctl-service-registration-00
The principle is a bit different than what you're doing because there's no DHCP (necessarily) involved, but otherwise it's the same basic idea. On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 7:27 AM, Bjørn Mork <bj...@mork.no> wrote: > Well.... Mark did propose this many years ago: > https://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2013-October/061619.html > > And based on that, I created a half-assed implementation using Net::DNS. > Of course I never got around to polishing it up enough to actually put > it into production. And definitely not to let the public see it... > > But it is still there on the TODO list in the back of my head, for one > of those days when you suddenly have 20 hours to spare and nothing > better to do. Might happen. You never know. Or someone else will pick > up the idea. That's more likely, I guess. > > Anyway, I'd hate to see a potentionally useful feature like SIG(0) go > away for no obvious gain. > > > > Bjørn > > > Ondřej Surý <ond...@isc.org> writes: > > > But if nobody uses that and nobody else implements this, it sort of > beats the usefulness of the feature. > > > > Ondrej > > -- > > Ondřej Surý — ISC > > > >> On 19 Jun 2018, at 23:20, Mark Andrews <ma...@isc.org> wrote: > >> > >> SIG(0) is much superior for machines updating their own data to TSIG > as you don’t need a secondary storage for the TSIG key. You can replace a > master server without having to worry about transferring TSIG secrets off a > dead machine. You just copy the zone from a slave and go. > >> > >> There are other scenarios where it is also superior like automaton > delegating In the reverse tree. > >> > >> No I don’t think it should go. > >> > >> It should be widely implemented so it can be used. There is a lot of > self fulfilling prophecy in the DNS of people will never is this so we > won’t implement it. > >> > >> -- > >> Mark Andrews > >> > >>> On 20 Jun 2018, at 06:48, Ondřej Surý <ond...@isc.org> wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> as far as I could find on the Internet there are only SIG(0) > implementation in handful DNS implementations - BIND, PHP Net_DNS2 PHP > library, Net::DNS(::Sec) Perl library, trust_dns written in Rust and > perhaps others I haven’t found; no mentions of real deployment was found > over the Internet (but you can blame Google for that)... > >>> > >>> Do people think the SIG(0) is something that we should keep in DNS and > it will be used in the future or it is a good candidate for throwing off > the boat? > >>> > >>> Ondrej > >>> -- > >>> Ondřej Surý > >>> ond...@isc.org > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> DNSOP mailing list > >>> DNSOP@ietf.org > >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > DNSOP mailing list > > DNSOP@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop > > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > DNSOP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop >
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
