Re: Policy of IPv6 DNS Discovery

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

on 8/2/2003 5:11 PM Rob Austein wrote:

> If I understand it correctly, the simple version of what you propose
> (just using multicast to find recursive name servers, nothing else)
> substitutes one multicast-based discovery protocol for another
> multicast-based discovery protocol.  Since it's quite possible to
> co-locate a DHCP-lite "server" inside the same "process" (or whatever
> fate sharing unit a server host uses) as the recursive name server,
> the fate sharing comparision comes out as a wash when one looks at it
> closely.  So one's left arguing about relatively trivial engineering
> details like packet formats and port numbers.

Are you referring to draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateless-00.txt or something
else? That draft makes no mention of multicast whatsoever, and the
reference context of link-local is a unicast address.

> In any case, either version of what you're talking about still looks
> to me like a proposal for new protocol work.  We're still trying to
> determine whether -any- new protocol work is needed, so this, like the

Some amount of work will need to be done no matter what. At the very
least, a set of behavioral rules will need to be codified.

-- 
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>.