1. 13

  2. 4

    That IETF thread makes me angry… it’s like a number of people who try really hard not to see a problem in front of them.

    Anyway, I’m glad I read some history. Recently I’ve been meaning to figure out what talks which discovery in my network. I know there’s at least mdns, llmnr, netbios, wsd, router-assigned names, but maybe some others. Yes, it’s basically mDNS and lots of weird things MS wants to do because they can’t possibly use something from Apple.

    1. 2

      Interesting. I now kinda want the code the post talks about so I can try and debug some resolution issues on my local system.

      1. 2

        If you mean the hacky proxy, you can find it here:


      2. 2

        Wow, I went on a long read of the thread and found this piece of gold:

        On Fri, Aug 26, 2005 at 11:21:06AM -0400, Keith Moore wrote:

        I am perhaps just being slow and dim-witted after minor surgery, but why should a protocol that no-one will use be standards track ?

        Why should we accept a few (mostly axe-grinding) peoples’ assertions that no-one will use it?


        we shouldn’t. LLMNR has waded through the lengthy IETF standardization process to get to where it is. That Microsoft has been patient and spent the money needed to keep people on this task long enough to get it here should be rewarded with the IETF imprinture. Of course even Microsoft has hedged its bets (even they are aware of the need to ship products) wrt LLMNR. But that is no reason for the IETF to not sanction this work.


        Unsurprisingly this got called out. But it was clear some people were motivated by strong emotions during this discussion.