Re: Policy of IPv6 DNS Discovery

[Rob Austein <sra+dnsop@hactrn.net>]

At Sat, 02 Aug 2003 18:38:50 -0500, Eric A. Hall wrote:
> 
> There's also the operational overhead differences. You'll still have to
> manage static pre-configured lists of servers, for example, while there
> wouldn't be any such lists with the multicast DNS 'CONFIG' model. Since
> any server that responded to the request would be a candidate, managing
> the list would essentially boil down to adding and deleting servers (or
> enabling and disabling recursion on those servers), and the new list of
> servers would self-identifies on the next query seamlessly.

Nope.  A minimal DHCPv6-lite server co-located with a recursive name
server would just respond with its own address.  This is no more (and
no less) static configuration than in your model.

> Granted, there would be some administration in terms of ensuring that
> multicast filters were working properly, but this is less than the
> requirements for DHCP.

Nope.  It's exactly the same as with DHCP, just on a different port
number.  The only real difference is that with DHCP one also has the
alternative of using DHCP relays if site multicast isn't practical.
#----------------------------------------------------------------------
# To unsubscribe, send a message to <dnsop-request@cafax.se>.