RE: proposal for a compromise on DNS discovery

[Ralph Droms <rdroms@cisco.com>]

What was missing in the original DNS discovery work is that
it explicitly ruled out DHCPv6 a priori...

- Ralph

At 05:03 PM 7/28/2003 +0200, BELOEIL Luc FTRD/DMI/CAE wrote:
> > >     Daniel> Reality check: home networks are, if connected to the
>Internet,
> > >     Daniel> attached via a gatewaying device. The de vice of choice
>for a
> > >     Daniel> large number of networks is a $60 router from on of any
>number of
> > >     Daniel> vendors. These boxes provide DHCP, DNS forwarding and
> > >     Daniel> NAT. Perhaps some other environment would provide a
>better
> > >     Daniel> strawman? DHCP is pretty prevalent in home networks.
> > >
> > >   Right, exactly.
> > >
> > >   I simply do not believe that there are environments where there
>will be
> > > a local (on wire) DNS server, but not a local DHCP server. The home
> > > environment is entirely the opposite - local DHCP server in SOHO
>router
> > > that gets the DNS info from the ISP via DHCP and/or PPP and passes
>it on via
> > > DHCP.
> >
> > Right.
> >
> > And, having such DHCP servers, there is no role of RA for stateless
> > (nor stateful) autoconfiguration, which is why IPv6 with ND is broken.
> >
> > The remaining problem is configuration on how to let the DHCP
> > server in SOHO router get the info and the solution should be
> > related to anycast.
> >
> > DNS server with anycast addresses does not neet intermediate DHCP.
> >
> >                                                       Masataka Ohta
> >
>
>Ok DHCP servers are embedded in current IPv4 SOHO router. This is cheap
>and efficient. But this is not a valid argument to to say that DHCP is
>THE only valid solution to announce DNS resolver server IPv6 address.
>
>SOHO routers, that are currently on market, are using a DHCPv6 client to
>be configured by the ISP but are using ND-based stateless address
>autoconfiguration to help local hosts to configure their IPv6 addresses
>!
>
>Then what is(are) the solution(s):
>- RA-based
>- DHCPv6-lite
>- Anycast Addresses for resolver DNS server
>- SLP (I also like SLP, which already a RFC - Standards Track - !!! Does
>anybody have a good point against SLP ?)
>- well-known link-local addresses (+ DNS proxies...)?...
>
>There was a analysis made by the DNS Discovery Design Team in march 2001
>(draft-ietf-ipnwg-dns-discovery-01.txt). Wouldn't it be valuable to go
>on or to restart such a work ? (instead of this no-end battle?) I must
>have missed something concerning this old work. Could anyone give me
>some pointers or summary?
>
>Luc
>
>#----------------------------------------------------------------------
># To unsubscribe, send a message to <dnsop-request@cafax.se>.

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