[avahi] Resolve multiple IP4 Addresses

[Mark Gollahon]

On Thu, 2009-05-07 at 19:57:37 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:

> On Thu, 07.05.09 13:09, Mark Gollahon (mgollahon at exacq.com) wrote:
> 
> > In my case, we are connecting to Axis cameras.  Some models of Axis
> > cameras report their configured IP address first; others report their
> > link-local address first.  Now, because of certain other design
> > limitations and requirements that would take too much time to go into
> > here, we have to store the camera's IP address when that camera is
> > configured in our system.  So, if during our camera detection phase,
> > Avahi hands back the link-local address, then we're totally sunk when
> > the link-local address changes (which does at the most inopportune time
> > - when the camera reboots and we're trying to reconnect).
> 
> I am sorry, but if you use IP addresses like this it is not more than
> an ugly hack.

Avahi, as it is written, doesn't give me much choice in the matter!  In
my scenario, I can rely on a configured IP address much more than on a
link-local address or even a name resolve.  The link-local has a short
lifespan (at most between reboots) and I cannot depend on "someone"
entering name-to-ip maps into the hosts file.  Therefore, it makes sense
to store and connect to the cameras using an IP address and not the
name.

So, you call this an ugly hack.  I do not think so, but if it is a hack,
it is a realistic one.

> IP addresses are not useful for identifying machines. IP adress can
> change. IP addresses can be assigned to multiple machines. One
> machine, even one network interface can have multiple IP addresses. IP
> addresses are only unique and suitable for identification in a very
> specific context, which is when you talk about network interfaces for
> the use of routing on a specific network in a specific time frame.

I agree that this is a good argument for *not* using IP addresses to
refer to devices on a network.  However, it is also a great argument
*for* returning multiple addresses during an mDNS query.  If my device
has multiple addresses (i.e. link-local and a configured one), why not
return all to the querying process and give it the ability to *choose*
which way to contact the device?  All of the name resolving mechanisms I
know about have the ability to return multiple addresses to the program
using it, all except Avahi.

> > Furthermore, trying to explain what that "169.x.x.x" address is or why a
> > user doesn't see the address they configured into the camera to a user
> > not versed in IP addressing is a complete non-starter.
> 
> Yes, IP addresses should generally not exposed to the user. That's why
> host names have been invented.

Yes, I very much agree with this statement.  I would much rather deal
with hostnames than IP addresses.  However, hostnames can change, too,
so its not the panacea you are making it out to be.

> > Therefore, saying that scenarios where an mDNS recipient needs all
> > addresses for a given DNS name is a misuse of mDNS really is
> > disingenuous.  There really are times when we need all of the reported
> > addresses we can get.
> 
> No. This is a hack. An ugly one. And a misuse of mDNS/DNS-SD.
> 
> This is precisely the reason why I chose not mimic the Bonjour API in
> this aspect: people start to misuse the technology for things it
> wasn't designed for.

I still do not understand where the mDNS spec says anything to the
effect of "only return one address per host even if that host reports
multiple addresses".  If it is there and I've missed it then it is my
fault for not taking it into account.  If it is not, then it was nothing
more than an artificially limiting implementation decision and I am not
"misusing" mDNS/DNS-SD in any way.

> 
> Lennart
> 

Regards,
Mark Gollahon