Re: dns discovery for agenda? [Re: chairs and charter]

[Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>]

On Sun, Mar 16, 2003 at 10:10:39PM +0100, Johan Ihren wrote:
> That you're not interested in configuring ntp, foo and bar is fine.
> But that is in no way an argument for a multitude of discovery
> mechanisms. I still think that *one* generic discovery mechanism is
> very much better than several.
> 
> Much better that you just configure your client not to import the
> stuff you don't care about than inventing more mechanisms to support
> every form of granularity that people can invent.
> 
> Let's keep it simple. 

Hi Johan,

I agree with the keep it simple princple in general, but in this case I'm 
not convincved.  DNS is a special case, as Pekka explained.  I think that, 
for example, advertising DNS by RA's in IPv6 offers a veru useful "missing 
piece" in the stateless autoconfiguration puzzle.  To require the presence 
of DHCPv6 for DNS discovery in IPv6 seems wrong.  I have no objection to it 
as *a* method, but in the scenario of my home network I'd be quite happy
to run without statelessly configuring clients needing to use DHCP to get
the DNS info.

I think many people accept that the well-known site-local method will die 
because of the issues with site-locals, thus leaving only DHCPv6 unless 
something like RA piggybacks is defined for the stateless scenario.

It would be interesting to review discovery methods in different protocols
(including transition protocols), as a variety of methods are already used
including well-known (site-local) addresses, link-local multicast, well-known
names, DHCPv6, SLP, anycast, etc.  The more we have, the more that needs
to be supported (which in itself becomes an argument to keep the stateless
picture simpler by not requiring DHCPv6 presence).

Tim
#----------------------------------------------------------------------
# To unsubscribe, send a message to <dnsop-request@cafax.se>.