4 Dec
2019
4 Dec
'19
8:46 p.m.
Hi Keith,
On Wed, Dec 04, 2019 at 02:36:43PM +0100, Keith wrote:
I'm not suggesting a dependency. You can always operate whatever DNS or mDNS on
whatever
domain names in a network under your control. I just think it might be smart
to try to avoid using a global namespace that more "authoritive" users might
use for something else in the future, who knows.
The D-GSM mDNS will work irrespective of the public DNS system as we know it.
In an inbound roaming situation, you have the MSC (VPLMN) in one village and the
"authoritative" HLR for that subscriber (HPLMN) in another village.
--
- Harald Welte <laforge(a)osmocom.org> http://laforge.gnumonks.org/
============================================================================
"Privacy in residential applications is a desirable marketing option."
(ETSI EN 300 175-7 Ch. A6)
== DNS zone /
.msisdn suffix ===
One question I had was regarding the use of the .{msisdn,imsi} TLD. I would argue
it is probably besser to use something that fits within the existing DNS hierarchy
without contesting IANA's authority on gTLDs.
I'd vote for, if at all possible, not making any link to/dependency on
DNS hierarchy. == GSUP
keepalives / connection loss detection ==
In the presence of unreliable back-haul mesh between villages, the GSUP
connection can also not be seen as reliable. We would expect to see TCP
stalls due to packet loss, etc.
We don't envisage a separation between MSC and HLR over unreliable
back-haul, but I think I'm missing something here. (I still need to
actually implement a local setup and observe)