To:
Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Cc:
dnsop@cafax.se
From:
John Schnizlein <jschnizl@cisco.com>
Date:
Mon, 04 Aug 2003 09:36:17 -0400
In-Reply-To:
<20030804122602.GD13730@login.ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Sender:
owner-dnsop@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: Policy of IPv6 DNS Discovery
At 08:26 AM 8/4/2003, Tim Chown wrote: >On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 07:22:13AM -0400, John Schnizlein wrote: >> >> Since there is a protocol (DCHPv6) which can provide the necessary >> information for hosts, and since the "heavy-weight" concerns attributed >> to that protocol have been shown invalid (existence proof: DHPCv6-light), >> justification for developing a new protocol (or extension of RA) must meet >> the burden identified in Architectural Principle 3.2 > >By that argument, we would not have IPv6 stateless autoconf at all? Not necessarily by that argument, but this is neither the time nor place to revisit that question. We can assume for now that there were sufficient reasons to justify stateless auto-config of host addresses. Notice that the existence proof to which I refer is stateless also. Just because the DHCPv6 protocol is used, does not make the result state-full. Remember that the DHCP server can provide site-specific information in a stateless way even if it is not managing (state-fully) the addresses of the hosts. As an additional simplifying feature, providing (stateless) information about the address of DNS servers uses the same protocol where addresses are (state-fully) managed by a DHCP server. Host configuration can either include or exclude host address configuration, depending on the site's decision. John #---------------------------------------------------------------------- # To unsubscribe, send a message to <dnsop-request@cafax.se>.