> On Jul 9, 2015, at 16:28 , Ricky Beam <jfb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, 09 Jul 2015 19:08:56 -0400, Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> wrote: >> the reality I’m trying to point out is that application developers make >> assumptions based >> on the commonly deployed environment that they expect in the world. > > Partially. It's also a matter of the software guys not having any clue > what-so-ever w.r.t. networking. In this case, APPLE designed Bonjour to not > cross network boundaries. Idiotic, but it allows them to sell "servers" that > do the cross-network routing.
Actually it’s not a design problem in IPv6. A simple tweak to the software to send to ff05::<group> instead of ff02::<group> or better yet, allow the user to edit the scope in System Preferences is all that is really needed. However, in IPv4, mDNS/Bonjour (and mDNS is uPNP’s fault, not Apple’s to the best of my knowledge) use broadcast packets and that’s a design flaw. However, hard to argue with the choice since multicast, especially cross-router multicast is pretty much busted in any sort of home gateway in IPv4 anyway. >> If we create a limited environment, then that is what they will code to. > > They will code to what they understand, what "works for them", and what their > users report "works for me". We will always end up with "substandard" quality > because they have little (or no) understanding of how networking does it's > thing. > > (And then marketing, and legal will step in and pooh on it even more.) OK… Clearly you are determined to let cynicism and avoidance drive your ideas here. I can’t help that. Hopefully enough others will try to make the internet more useful as we move forward and hand out larger end-site prefixes. Owen
