Re: Policy of IPv6 DNS Discovery

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

on 8/2/2003 7:06 PM Rob Austein wrote:

> 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.

I'll go refresh on dhcpv6-lite, but in the meantime if you'll guarantee
that manual maintenance of extra-service configuration data will never be
mandatory (my fear word) then I'll rescind my concerns.

-- 
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>.