From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Steve Simon Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) Message-Id: Date: Sat, 2 Jan 2016 09:21:52 +0000 References: <383D8F53-3364-420A-93ED-E1034CB0C258@quintile.net> <3e9e24eac4cebcbec3805d16d0081dc5@mule> <62E80203-4B7F-42FF-B75E-93B55D8FBE64@boschma.cx> In-Reply-To: <62E80203-4B7F-42FF-B75E-93B55D8FBE64@boschma.cx> To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Subject: Re: [9fans] bonjour mDNS? Topicbox-Message-UUID: 7d19a2b2-ead9-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 that would not work, because of how dns(1) presents its interface. if the file server presented a directory of files then you can merge them. however dns has a single file that you open, write a request to, and then la= ter read a reply from. in this later form you merge the directories you just have two request files= , rather than one request file which offers the service of moth files. I am not sure I have explained this very well, I hope you understand. -Steve > On 2 Jan 2016, at 05:17, Marc Boschma wrote: >=20 > Still getting my head around Plan9 but wouldn=E2=80=99t mounting the unica= st and multicast DNS file servers over the top of each other work? (I assume= the order of the mount (bind) would lead to resolution order=E2=80=A6 but m= aybe no unified responses. >=20 > Marc >=20 >> On 2 Jan 2016, at 2:42 pm, erik quanstrom wrote: >>=20 >> On Fri Jan 1 19:32:25 PST 2016, marc@boschma.cx wrote: >>>=20 >>>> On 2 Jan 2016, at 7:05 am, Steve Simon wrote: >>>> anyone done any work to implement mDNS / bonjour on plan9? >>>=20 >>> No, but I have an interest; just starting out with Plan9 :) >>>=20 >>>> my rough plan is to write a file server which generates /lib/ndb/mdns >>>> which can be included into your /lib/ndb/local. >>>>=20 >>>> I fear the biggest hassle is the clash of UDP port use may mean >>>> mDNS must become part of dns(1) rather than a separate file server. >>>=20 >>> Shouldn=E2=80=99t dns(1) only bind to unicast UDP port and thus mDNS cou= ld bind to the multicast UDP port? >>>=20 >>> Are you only considering resolution or also publishing services? >>=20 >> it would make sense to me to make a dnsudp request file server that manag= es requests, and >> fork (ha!) that task off to it. this file server would not care if it's q= uerying normal dns, >> or mdns. >>=20 >> - erik >=20