What is avahi daemon?

Hello everyone!
Can you explain the function of avahi daemon as I am new to linux?

On 2008-01-16, MohsinHijazee <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Can you explain the function of avahi daemon as I am new to linux?

Does google not work in your universe? Try it out. If you have further
questions feel free to post specifics to the newsgroup.

--keith

--
kkeller-(E-Mail Removed)
(try just my userid to email me)
AOLSFAQ=http://www.therockgarden.ca/aolsfaq.txt
see X- headers for PGP signature information

On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 22:53:24 -0800 (PST), MohsinHijazee wrote:
> Hello everyone!
> Can you explain the function of avahi daemon as I am new to linux?

You should not need it. It is to implement a Micro$not "feature"

http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search

put avahi daemon in the first box

and moe trin in the author box.

Click the Zeroconf/avahi link.

On Jan 16, 12:14 pm, Bit Twister <BitTwis...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 22:53:24 -0800 (PST), MohsinHijazee wrote:
> > Hello everyone!
> > Can you explain the function of avahi daemon as I am new to linux?
>
> You should not need it. It is to implement a Micro$not "feature"
>
> http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search
>
> put avahi daemon in the first box
>
> and moe trin in the author box.
>
> Click the Zeroconf/avahi link.

Thank you very much for the tip.
I did the above mentioned thing. Reading it and would let you know
how's it.

Regards

Bit Twister <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 22:53:24 -0800 (PST), MohsinHijazee wrote:
>> Hello everyone!
>> Can you explain the function of avahi daemon as I am new to linux?
>
> You should not need it. It is to implement a Micro$not "feature"

Not just Microsoft. Apple have put a lot of effort into the Zeroconf
idea now and Sun has also contributed.



--
Bruce

I must admit that the existence of Disneyland (which I know is real)
proves that we are not living in Judea in AD 50. -- Philip K. Dick

On Wed, 16 Jan 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.os.linux.networking, in
article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Bruce Richardson wrote:

>Bit Twister <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>> MohsinHijazee wrote:

>>> Can you explain the function of avahi daemon as I am new to linux?

>> You should not need it. It is to implement a Micro$not "feature"

>Not just Microsoft. Apple have put a lot of effort into the Zeroconf
>idea now and Sun has also contributed.

Apple originated the idea - as "Rendezvous" or "Bonjour" in 1997. The
idea was for those times when two people met somewhere, and wanted to
trade files without having a real network available. See the original
version of draft-ietf-zeroconf-ipv4-linklocal-01.txt from November
2000.

Microsoft thought the concept was great, as it allowed systems to
work when the MSCE (or the average user) had so screwed up the network
configurations that even windoze wouldn't work - and this was added to
win98. Microsoft joined the linklocal working group in 2001 so that
their version would be considered.

Sun (actually Sun Germany) joined later still, but it appears they
were adding sanity checking. Compare the linklocal-04 and
linklocal-07 releases of the draft. For what it's worth, there were
other companies represented on the linklocal working group, such as
Motorola. The main result of this collaboration was RFC3927.

3927 Dynamic Configuration of IPv4 Link-Local Addresses. S. Cheshire,
B. Aboba, E. Guttman. May 2005. (Format: TXT=83102 bytes)
(Status: PROPOSED STANDARD)

But this didn't deal with name resolution. For that, Apple and
microsoft came up with incompatible solutions, using different IP
addresses and port numbers[1] and even different packet formats. These
were documented in two additional draft families -
draft-ietf-dnsext-mdns from microsoft went through (at least) 47
releases before being introduced as an INFORMATION RFC (RFC4795 - which
describes how it works, but doesn't specify anything meant as a
standard), while Apple worked on draft-cheshire-dnsext-multicastdns
which went through six releases before disappearing). Avahi is one of
several free implementations of the Apple proposal, and therefore isn't
compatible with the windoze version (you'd need to be running Samba and
NETBIOS name resolution for windoze). Both Apple and microsoft warn
that the name service is insecure, suggest different name limitations[2]
though intentionally ignoring those limits, and then drop the fireball
into your lap by saying that you should use some other security
mechanism, but neither bother to include ANY such mechanism.

Old guy
[1] Apple used 224.0.0.251 or its IPv6 equivalent FF02::FB and port
5353, while microsoft uses 224.0.0.252 or its IPv6 equivalent
FF02::1:3 and port 5355.

[2] Apple proposed limiting name resolution to names ending in .local
ONLY, while microsoft proposed using "single-label names" (which is
win-babble for names without a 'dot'). Neither actually implemented
these limitations because they knew lusers would not follow these
limits even if they were aware of them.

On Jan 18, 5:44 am, ibupro...@painkiller.example.tld (Moe Trin) wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Jan 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.os.linux.networking, in
> article <slrnfosapl.8b8.itsbr...@store.bruce>, Bruce Richardson wrote:
>
> >Bit Twister <BitTwis...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> >> MohsinHijazee wrote:
> >>> Can you explain the function of avahi daemon as I am new to linux?
> >> You should not need it. It is to implement a Micro$not "feature"
> >Not just Microsoft. Apple have put a lot of effort into the Zeroconf
> >idea now and Sun has also contributed.
>
> Apple originated the idea - as "Rendezvous" or "Bonjour" in 1997. The
> idea was for those times when two people met somewhere, and wanted to
> trade files without having a real network available. See the original
> version of draft-ietf-zeroconf-ipv4-linklocal-01.txt from November
> 2000.
>
> Microsoft thought the concept was great, as it allowed systems to
> work when the MSCE (or the average user) had so screwed up the network
> configurations that even windoze wouldn't work - and this was added to
> win98. Microsoft joined the linklocal working group in 2001 so that
> their version would be considered.
>
> Sun (actually Sun Germany) joined later still, but it appears they
> were adding sanity checking. Compare the linklocal-04 and
> linklocal-07 releases of the draft. For what it's worth, there were
> other companies represented on the linklocal working group, such as
> Motorola. The main result of this collaboration was RFC3927.
>
> 3927 Dynamic Configuration of IPv4 Link-Local Addresses. S. Cheshire,
> B. Aboba, E. Guttman. May 2005. (Format: TXT=83102 bytes)
> (Status: PROPOSED STANDARD)
>
> But this didn't deal with name resolution. For that, Apple and
> microsoft came up with incompatible solutions, using different IP
> addresses and port numbers[1] and even different packet formats. These
> were documented in two additional draft families -
> draft-ietf-dnsext-mdns from microsoft went through (at least) 47
> releases before being introduced as an INFORMATION RFC (RFC4795 - which
> describes how it works, but doesn't specify anything meant as a
> standard), while Apple worked on draft-cheshire-dnsext-multicastdns
> which went through six releases before disappearing). Avahi is one of
> several free implementations of the Apple proposal, and therefore isn't
> compatible with the windoze version (you'd need to be running Samba and
> NETBIOS name resolution for windoze). Both Apple and microsoft warn
> that the name service is insecure, suggest different name limitations[2]
> though intentionally ignoring those limits, and then drop the fireball
> into your lap by saying that you should use some other security
> mechanism, but neither bother to include ANY such mechanism.
>
> Old guy
> [1] Apple used 224.0.0.251 or its IPv6 equivalent FF02::FB and port
> 5353, while microsoft uses 224.0.0.252 or its IPv6 equivalent
> FF02::1:3 and port 5355.
>
> [2] Apple proposed limiting name resolution to names ending in .local
> ONLY, while microsoft proposed using "single-label names" (which is
> win-babble for names without a 'dot'). Neither actually implemented
> these limitations because they knew lusers would not follow these
> limits even if they were aware of them.

Thank you very much! Very elaborate explanation!