[avahi] breaking avahi through vpn

[Trent Lloyd]

On Sunday 12 February 2006 22:23, Sebastien Estienne wrote:
> On 2/12/06, Lennart Poettering <lennart at poettering.net> wrote:
> > On Sun, 12.02.06 13:32, Sebastien Estienne (sebastien.estienne at gmail.com) 
wrote:
> > > what about doing something like the relaying gateways that i suggested
> > > to fill the need for zeroconf with vpn?
> > >
> > > Would it work? they wouldn't forward the query, but exchange the
> > > browsing list on a regular basis (or something equivalent)
> > >
> > > what are your opinions?
> >
> > I suppose you mean something similar to Samba's "remote browse sync"
> > option?
>
> exactly
>
> > I don't think it is feasible to implement something like this for
> > mDNS. In contrast to SMB servers mDNS responders never compile
> > something like a complete browse list, hence there is nothing two
> > servers could exchange.
>
> the idea would be to periodically browse for all available service
> (like service_type_browser , avahi-browse -a) and transfer the results
> over unicast to the other deamon.

That's really ugly

  a) That would cause excessive network traffic all the time, especially bad 
on wireless networks
  b) Not all devices advertise the magic needed for the service type browser, 
so you wont get everything.

Cheers,
Trent

>
> I agree that it may be a bit hackish though... and that uniscat dns-sd
> (wide-area) is a better solution. We just loose the ease of setup as
> wide-area needs a dns server and configuration on each clients
> (unicast domain + key/shared secret for publishing), that's why it's
> not really zeroconf as zero configuration.
>
> As far as i know wide area is already widely used in miscrosoft active
> directory.
>
> > Avahi already does forwarding of mDNS traffic between multiple
> > interfaces. If latency is good enough you may use that to bridge two
> > networks.
> >
> > Unicast DNS is definitely preferable when it comes to high latency
> > links. There's no point in trying to modify mDNS in a way that it is
> > capable of coping with high latency. There is already unicast DNS which
> > is perfectly capable to deal with situations like that.
>
> the idea wasn't to modify mdns, but just implementing a separated deamon
>
> this idea is not really new, some project already did things a bit like
> this: - rendezvousproxy:
> http://ileech.sourceforge.net/index.php?content=RendezvousProxy-News
> - zerospan:
> http://www.zerospan.org/
>
> > Lennart
> >
> > --
> > Lennart Poettering; lennart [at] poettering [dot] net
> > ICQ# 11060553; GPG 0x1A015CC4; http://0pointer.net/lennart/
> > _______________________________________________
> > avahi mailing list
> > avahi at lists.freedesktop.org
> > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/avahi
>
> --
> Sebastien Estienne

-- 
Trent Lloyd
Bur.st Networking Inc.