To:
dnsop@cafax.se
From:
Rob Austein <sra+dnsop@hactrn.net>
Date:
Sun, 03 Aug 2003 23:07:48 -0400
In-Reply-To:
<002f01c35a2a$5bff4c50$c470fe81@etri.re.kr>
Sender:
owner-dnsop@cafax.se
User-Agent:
Wanderlust/2.10.0 (Venus) Emacs/20.7 Mule/4.0 (HANANOEN)
Subject:
Re: Policy of IPv6 DNS Discovery
At Mon, 4 Aug 2003 10:47:24 +0900, Jaehoon Jeong wrote: > > 1. Do you mean that RA-based DNS Discovery is out of scope in DNSOP wg? I have already answered this question, more than once: Discussion of new protocol extensions (such as your draft) will be in scope (for some WG, probably not DNSOP) if and only if the requirements discussion concludes that there's a gap between real requirements and existing protocols. Serious question, not intended as sarcasm: is there some part of the previous sentence which you do not understand? > 2. Do you think that DHCPv6-lite is necessary in the environment where DHCPv6 exists? > > For the second question, IMHO, in such a case, DHCPv6-lite is unnecessary. > RA-based approach seeks to harmonize with DHCPv6. DHCPv6-lite is a subset of DHCPv6; therefore, by definition, if one has DHCPv6, one also has DHCPv6-lite, and a DHCPv6-lite client doesn't care whether the server(s) that answer it are DHCPv6 or DHCPv6-lite. #---------------------------------------------------------------------- # To unsubscribe, send a message to <dnsop-request@cafax.se>.