Roku Player doesn't follow RFC 2182

[philsoft]

Brad, you have an internal DNS? How's that possible? You can't possibly mean DNS.

Agreed, there is no way he has his own DNS.

You two frankly have no idea what you're talking about. I suggest letting this thread die, as the level of misinformation is staggering.

This website covers it pretty well I guess
http://www.internic.net/faqs/authoritative-dns.html

Obviously not, since you still seem so confused.

Well clearly you don't understand it. Let's look at the most pertinent part.

"Why do alternate roots create a problem?"
There are many potential problems caused by these unofficial, alternate root efforts to exploit the stability and reach of the authoritative root. These efforts are often promoted by those unwilling to abide by the consensus policies established by the Internet community, policies designed to ensure the continued stability and utility of the DNS.

For example:

First, the names of some of these pseudo-TLDs could overlap TLD names in the authoritative root or those that appear in other alternate roots. Our familiar friend icann.org could appear in two different roots. Your e-mail to Aunt Sally could end up with my Uncle Juan.
Second, the unknowing users might not be linked to one of these alternate roots and not be able to reach these pseudo-TLD addresses at all. Your e-mail to Aunt Sally could end up as a dead-letter.
Third, those purchasing domain names in these pseudo-TLDs may not be aware of these and other consequences of the lack of universal resolvability. Or they may be under the impression that they are experiencing universal resolvability when in fact they are not. They may be very upset to learn that the names they registered are also being used by others, or that a new TLD in the authoritative root will not include those names.
These problems are not significant so long as these alternate roots remain very small, that is, house few domain names with little potential for conflict. But if they should ever attract many users, the problems would become much more serious, and could affect the stability and reliability of the DNS itself. Users would lose confidence in the utility of the Internet.

[vmps]

Well clearly you don't understand it. Let's look at the most pertinent part.

oh, please do explain it for me

"Why do alternate roots create a problem?"

before we go any further, you do realize that you're quoting a marketing document from the organization that currently has a monopoly over the major DNS root and has a vested interest in suppressing the multiple extant alternate roots, right?

There are many potential problems caused by these unofficial, alternate root efforts to exploit the stability and reach of the authoritative root [blah blah blah]

None of that was any kind of technical refutation of the original point. (In fact, the very existence of a document villifying alternate roots kinda implies it's possible, doesn't it?)

Let's look at some choice prior quotes: "I don't consider that a DNS. Apparently you do, but I don't. It caches visited sites. To me it would be more appropriately named an IP aggregator." Your "IP aggregator" is properly called a caching name server, a fairly critical component of the domain name system (DNS). "A true DNS has the IP addresses for domain names whether they have been visited or crawled, or not." Well, in that case I've had a true DNS in my house for going on 15 years. Glad that's settled. Is it a global DNS? Of course not. But there is no server in the world that has the IP of every hostname, that's the point of the domain name system.

If you have some sort of point to make about DNS as it pertains to the roku box, please try to explain it verbosely and we'll try to clear up your terminology. I'm not sure there's really much to say about it, though. It seems that the roku doesn't use secondary servers when available (for no clear reason), that there's some confusing idea that a router is the same thing as a DNS server (not remotely true), and that a lot of people need a simple guide to the various components of the DNS hierarchy in order to speak about it more clearly. FWIW, I've posted numerous times that the biggest mistake in the implementation of the roku's DNS lookups is that it relies on ISP DNS rather than trying a direct query and only falling back to ISP DNS if that fails (doing so would eliminate the lengthy threads full of problems caused by picking the "wrong" DNS server).

[philsoft]

I'll choose to accept the Internic version rather than the version of a nameless person on the internet, as I presume MOST people will.

[vmps]

I'll choose to accept the Internic version rather than the version of a nameless person on the internet, as I presume MOST people will.

What on earth are you talking about? Nothing you quoted in any way supports your "position". You're either a really good troll or really dense.

[philsoft]

I'll choose to accept the Internic version rather than the version of a nameless person on the internet, as I presume MOST people will.

What on earth are you talking about? Nothing you quoted in any way supports your "position". You're either a really good troll or really dense.

You are the one trolling. What was being referred to, before you slipped your 2cents in, was the fact that these "alternate roots" are not really DNS servers since they are not a legitimate root, ESPECIALLY when it is a half assed alternate root that someone has set up in their home. Then you came in and started throwing crap around like the troll I believe you to be. The Internic website supports my position just fine. If you don't think it does, that is fine, it makes no difference to me.

[vmps]

I'll choose to accept the Internic version rather than the version of a nameless person on the internet, as I presume MOST people will.

What on earth are you talking about? Nothing you quoted in any way supports your "position". You're either a really good troll or really dense.

You are the one trolling. What was being referred to, before you slipped your 2cents in, was the fact that these "alternate roots" are not really DNS servers since they are not a legitimate root, ESPECIALLY when it is a half assed alternate root that someone has set up in their home. Then you came in and started throwing crap around like the troll I believe you to be. The Internic website supports my position just fine. If you don't think it does, that is fine, it makes no difference to me.

Let's review: Someone said they had an internal DNS server. Someone else said "You can't possibly mean DNS" and you jumped in with "Agreed, there is no way he has his own DNS." That's flat out wrong. Ever since then you've been backpedaling, sidepedaling, confusing the issue, and avoiding responding in any substantive way with any technical explanation explaining how you could possibly not be flat out wrong. You've said things suggesting that you aren't familiar with standard terminology, and claimed that "you don't consider" things to be what what they are, and quoted a document arguing that private roots are a bad idea (implying that it is possible, refuting your original argument). Multiple people have stated that they, in fact, have internal DNS servers, and you still claim that they aren't "real" DNS servers. You have consistently refused to explain what a "real" DNS server is (this is the hallmark of a troll--never respond in a substantive fashion, because that will make the contradictions of the position apparent).

[mkiker2089]

No VMPS you are wrong.

1- that poster was incorrect. The set up they are refereing to doesn't use a dns but substitutes the routers IP as a DNS. It's the guest password feature in WPA protocol

2- constant bickering over what is and what isn't a DNS has no merit to this board. We know what a real DNS is even if your definition is so lose that I pray to god to never get stuck using one like that.

3- can we please just lock this thread now

[vmps]

1- that poster was incorrect. The set up they are refereing to doesn't use a dns but substitutes the routers IP as a DNS. It's the guest password feature in WPA protocol

This is the kind of nonsense that I'm talking about. What does "doesn't use a dns but substitutes a the routers IP as a DNS" even mean? The acronym "DNS" means "Domain Name System", and provides 1) Standard formats for resource data. 2) Standard methods for querying the database. and 3) Standard methods for name servers to refresh local data from foreign name servers. (From RFC 1034.) A "routers IP" can in no way be a DNS. A router routes packets (copies them from one interface to another), that's it. A multifunction device may provide routing services as well as network address translation, DHCP, DNS relay or caching, etc., but this is a not a function of a "router". It kinda seems from context like you think DNS means some kind of server (it doesn't--servers are one component of the system, but not the system itself), but (again) you're playing so fast and loose with terminology that's really hard to understand what you're trying to say. Talking about "a dns" is kind of like talking about "an internet" -- it probably doesn't mean what you think it means. I won't even guess what "It's the guest password feature in WPA protocol" is supposed to mean.

2- constant bickering over what is and what isn't a DNS has no merit to this board. We know what a real DNS is

I really don't think you do. The fact that you refuse to explain what you think it is, in detail, so your terminology can be fixed goes a long way toward convincing me of that. A few people have tried to sort this out, but they didn't get very far.

[kumasuki]

I suggest letting this thread die, as the level of misinformation is staggering.

PLEASE on behalf of this forum community, follow your own suggestion and stop responding to this thread - it's obviously going nowhere!

[philsoft]

Look, the fact is, I do not consider a server that some guy sets up in his house to be a part of the DNS, and neither does Internic, if you do, then Bravo for you, but it doesn't make you right.

It doesn't matter really. The problem IS, that people create some crazy setup like this, and then kick and scream when their Roku DVP doesn't perform the way they want it to. Well I can say with confidence that this would be an unsupported setup, and any problems you might have with this kind of setup would be your own to deal with.

[vmps]

PLEASE on behalf of this forum community, follow your own suggestion and stop responding to this thread - it's obviously going nowhere!

You're right, I apologize for feeding the troll. If anyone has any technical questions they should start a new thread. Hopefully nobody will look to this thead for pointers.

[KennyJ]

So... I'm still confused. Who has the bigger penis?

[LostCluster]

I think we're getting derailed from why I started this thread...

Roku is only configurable by DHCP, and furthermore only accepting the primary DNS resolver address... when it's a perfectly valid configuration to have multiple DNS resolving address should you want to insert some non-public hostnames into your system.

Basically, Roku is taking some shortcuts that an Internet-connected device should never do. They should accept multiple addresses, and additionally expose the IP settings to the user so that they can set this up manually should there not be a DHCP response. Additionally, when it fails it should "time out" and give an error explaining in what point in the process a connection fails so users have an easier time finding out what part of their system is down.

Everybody else on the Internet are doing this... why aren't you??

[LostCluster]

Look, the fact is, I do not consider a server that some guy sets up in his house to be a part of the DNS, and neither does Internic, if you do, then Bravo for you, but it doesn't make you right.

You fail basic networking. DNS stands for "Domain Name SERVER", not "system" or "service" or anything that implies there's one for the world. If everybody looked back at the "root servers" for every domain name request, they'd be painfully overloaded and this whole Internet think would break down. So, ISPs and some advanced users set up caching systems and query those first, and those servers look back at other servers, and if nobody knows the last resort is to go to the root servers.

You specify multiple domain servers as a fall-back in case the primary ones are down for any reason. You can also specify an internal server which can run a ".local" or ".myhouse" or anything so that you can refer to your local servers if you have any. If that server doesn't know, you move on to your ISP's DNS or OpenDNS or Google's DNS offering to get the published names.

Internic is a "natural monopoly". You can't have two root DNS systems... they'll just overlap and fight with each other. If you know a better way to do it... do it and get the world to accept it. Good luck with that.

[jeffrok]

So... I'm still confused. Who has the bigger penis?

Winner, winner, chicken dinner. Again.