Re: Stepping back on the DNS discovery discussion

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

On Tue, Jul 15, 2003 at 12:40:06AM -0700, Alain Durand wrote:

> However, it is not clear to me that 1- and 5- need to be addressed by 
> the same
> mechanism. That is, if there is already a mechanism to broadcast NTP
> timestamp on the local network, this may be a good enough solution.

Agreed.  I think Mat and Pekka's points are also well made.

> If we think that DNS discovery (for lack of a better term) is a 
> critical part of stateless autoconfiguration,
> it may makes sense for it to have the same properties as  the rest  of 
> the story, e.g. prefix discovery.

There was certainly a significant hum in this direction in the meeting.
Both DNS Lite and RA discovery methods can exist; each has an application 
domain/scope.

> C) A third element in this discussion is the compatibility with the 
> IPv4 model.

This also links back to the SFO meeting where the WG discussed how answers 
from (potentially) different DHCP and DHCPv6 servers would be handled in a 
dual stack environment.   

But that's the point now - IPv6 stateless DNS discovery is not perceived as 
"missing" because most people use IPv6 in a dual-stack network where IPv4 
DNS resolver info is issued over IPv4 transport by DHCP(v4).  As Mat says,
in new LCNA devices, isn't DHCP(Lite) client support merely for DNS discovery
a little unecessary?   Sure, not all LCNA's will need to resolve DNS, but 
many will.

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