Re: Policy of IPv6 DNS Discovery

[Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>]

Rob Austin;

> And there's at least part of the problem.  "Stateless DNS discovery"
> is not the same thing as "a solution in addition to DHCPv6" unless
> "stateless" is just a euphemism for "anything but DHCP".  DHCPv6-lite
> is also "stateless" for every definition of "stateless" that applies
> to, eg, the RA-based proposals.  This confusion persisted through the
> entire discussion in the IPv6 WG,

which is partly why I abandoned IPv6 WG not being a place
for serious protocol discussion long before.

> 3) Ohta-san has resurfaced the well-known-anycast hack.  Issues with
>    this are already on record in the IPv6 WG list archives, so I won't
>    restate them here,

I guess there should be a lot of confusions on "stateless" in addition
to poor understandings on "anycast", such as that anycast addresses
should not be a source address, and on "scope" such as that discussed
in my draft that the archives are not helpful.

If my guess is wrong, correct me with a few pointed references.

>    but I will note that sites which chose to do
>    this with unicast addresses out of their own address space (as
>    opposed to well-known unicast or anycast addresses) are already
>    free to do so, and, indeed, I've been told that many ISPs already
>    do this for v4 -- pretty much by definition, nobody but the ops
>    staff at those ISPs would know.  At a high level, though, the key
>    point here is that this is not new technology, and sites which
>    chose to use it can do so already without further protocol work.

Right. However, autocnfiguration is not a protocol but an operational
issue.

Site dependent anycast addresses can not remove operational effort
of DNS configuration by site administrators.

Global anycast addresses does remove it.

> In summary, while it's possible that there's a credible case to be
> made for why further protocol work is needed, I haven't seen it yet.

As we agree that

> to, eg, the RA-based proposals.  This confusion persisted through the
> entire discussion in the IPv6 WG,

isn't it obvious that removal of features related to "stateless
autoconfiguration", including entire ND, from IPv6 is the required
protocol work?

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