To:
"Ralph Droms" <rdroms@cisco.com>, <dnsop@cafax.se>
From:
"BELOEIL Luc FTRD/DMI/CAE" <luc.beloeil@francetelecom.com>
Date:
Tue, 29 Jul 2003 13:56:05 +0200
content-class:
urn:content-classes:message
Sender:
owner-dnsop@cafax.se
Thread-Index:
AcNVHPFupaNgCoTEQSq50pX3dYTWmwAqcQvQ
Thread-Topic:
proposal for a compromise on DNS discovery
Subject:
RE: proposal for a compromise on DNS discovery
Hi Raplh, thank you for that precision. draft-ietf-ipngwg-dns-discovery-01.txt had a whole section (6.1 DHCP) concerning DHCP. But It seems some other points could also be added to section 5 (Transport Mechanisms) so as to refer explicitly to DHCP. Do you think it would be valuable to work again on that draft? Luc > -----Message d'origine----- > De : Ralph Droms [mailto: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: > > > >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>. > #---------------------------------------------------------------------- # To unsubscribe, send a message to <dnsop-request@cafax.se>.