To:
Rob Austein <sra+dnsop@hactrn.net>
CC:
dnsop@cafax.se
From:
"Eric A. Hall" <ehall@ehsco.com>
Date:
Sat, 02 Aug 2003 16:24:00 -0500
In-Reply-To:
<20030802205235.EF43D18EA@thrintun.hactrn.net>
Sender:
owner-dnsop@cafax.se
User-Agent:
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624
Subject:
Re: Policy of IPv6 DNS Discovery
on 8/2/2003 3:52 PM Rob Austein wrote:
> Real issues I've heard so far:
>
> 1) Pekka points out that the DHCPv6 spec is a pretty big chunk of text
> 2) Alain points out that having every node in a building poll at once
> 3) Ohta-san has resurfaced the well-known-anycast hack. Issues with
> Other than the above, what I've heard has been the same tired refrain
> of "stateful address assignment is optional in IPv6, therefore we need
I don't know if you're bundling my complaint in the latter camp or not,
but if so that's an incorrect interpretation. My complaint is that the
mandatory requirement introduces unnecessary complexity to the default
scenario by interfering with the application-layer DNS service, imposes
non-intuitive management cycles onto the service ("oh yeah, my resolver
gets its config from this extraneous service that I forgot about because
I'm not using it for anything else"), and is wholly unnecessary when the
service is capable of handling it internally.
Separately, use of in-band dynamic discovery via multicast also allows
SRV-based discovery mechanisms to bootstrap further. Those systems also
operate outside of or run in parallel with DHCP.
FWIW, I run DHCP here and I would almost certainly use it for this too,
although my network is much better managed than most of the networks out
there today.
--
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>.