To:
"BELOEIL Luc FTRD/DMI/CAE" <luc.beloeil@francetelecom.com>
Cc:
"Dnsop List diff IETF (E-mail)" <dnsop@cafax.se>
From:
John Schnizlein <jschnizl@cisco.com>
Date:
Tue, 29 Jul 2003 10:59:07 -0400
In-Reply-To:
<C331E5A29B51A84E9755E834A3E619D10F9F70@ftrdmel1.rd.francetelecom.fr>
Sender:
owner-dnsop@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: DNS discovery: what about well-known site-local addresses ?
At 08:31 AM 7/29/2003, BELOEIL Luc FTRD/DMI/CAE wrote: >at last IETF meeting (Vienna), I have understood that Christian Huitema was proposing not to deprecate well-know site-local addresses used for recursive DNS servers. As a consequence, such a solution could also be taken into account in our discussion. > >I would like to have the opinion of this working group about that point. Why continue this insistent attempt to invent new methods when there is a well-defined method (stateless-DHCP) that has widespread support? First reason why this new alternative is a bad idea: The definition of well-known addresses for each Internet service is not the way the Internet works. A very strong analysis would be expected to embark on such a radical reinvention. Second reason: Site-local addresses are contentious, to say the least. A large fraction, if not rough consensus (see Tony Hain's rebuttal), agrees that site-local addresses cause more trouble than they are worth. Third reason: The number of special site-local addresses would limit the number of DNS servers that could be made available to clients. Fourth reason: For each special site-local address, the local network administration would have to configure appropriate routing - a non-trivial effort. Fifth reason: This approach would not work for the case in which a subscriber uses a DNS server provided by his service provider. The subscriber's site and the provider's site are likely often different. John #---------------------------------------------------------------------- # To unsubscribe, send a message to <dnsop-request@cafax.se>.