To:
Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Cc:
dnsop@cafax.se
From:
Alain Durand <Alain.Durand@Sun.COM>
Date:
Mon, 04 Aug 2003 13:10:41 -0700
Sender:
owner-dnsop@cafax.se
User-Agent:
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; SunOS sun4u; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020920Netscape/7.0
Subject:
Re: Policy of IPv6 DNS Discovery
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?
>
>Tim
>
No, because DHCPv6-lite keeps no state, so it is fitted
to hand out information without keeping track of who it sent them to.
Works just fine for DNS server, NTP,.... discovery, but
is a little cumbersome for address management...
Note: for those of us who really do not like stateless autoconf,
we could still replace it with DHCPv6-lite where the returned address
would be the concatenation of the prefix and the modified EUI64....
This would not require the DHCPv6-lite server to keep any state,
it could be easily implemented in the routers, ,will serve as access
control,
allow for prefixes other than /64, simplify having multiple prefixes
on the same link and make the management of reverse DNS so much simpler...
Just 1/2 kidding. ;-)
- Alain.
#----------------------------------------------------------------------
# To unsubscribe, send a message to <dnsop-request@cafax.se>.