avoiding proxies

["Eric A. Hall" <ehall@ehsco.com>]

From my point of view, the problem with mandating the use of either of
these solutions is that they would both introduce the use of mandatory
proxies to some extent, and would prevent the application-layer DNS from
working in their absence. This is a bad idea, in my opinion, as it
interferes with several basic design tenets.

In the case of RA (as I understand it), the clients and servers couldn't
function without a proxy in any event, even if they were on the same
subnet. In the case of DHCP, a client and server could function in the
absence of a proxy if they were both on the same subnet, but not in other
scenarios. Stick the ~discovery capability into the service itself, and
this is all avoided.

On a related but separate point, generalized configuration services as a
whole should still be available as an option, and DHCP should be capable
of providing all of the necessary configuration information if that
service is already being used. So I'm in favor of adding whatever is
necessary to DHCP, but it should not be *required* in the default case.

-- 
Eric A. Hall                                        http://www.ehsco.com/
Internet Core Protocols          http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/


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