To:
Soohong Daniel Park <soohong.park@samsung.com>
Cc:
dnsop@cafax.se
From:
John Schnizlein <jschnizl@cisco.com>
Date:
Mon, 29 Sep 2003 15:13:40 -0400
In-Reply-To:
<002801c3849d$fb15d5f0$b7cbdba8@daniel>
Sender:
owner-dnsop@cafax.se
Subject:
How IPv6 host gets DNS address
Neither of these is a technical reason to prefer RA to DHCPv6. Specific technical responses to the points raised: At 10:20 PM 9/26/2003, Soohong Daniel Park wrote: RE: draft vienna minutes (sorry about the delay) >> The biggest technical difference I see between the DHCPv6 >> (and DHCPv6 lite) and RA approaches is that DHCPv6 is a two >> packet exchange for each host vs. the RA approach where a RA >> message can be multicast to all hosts on the link. This apparent efficiency - one packet per link rather than 2 per host - would come at the cost of the hosts waiting until the next scheduled multicast RA. Where would the two-packet exchange be more detrimental than a random delay until DNS is available? >In addition, mobile node (especially WLAN) prefer RA option to DHCP >from ISP experiences because of below reasons >1) Delay of DHCP request/reply Relay >2) Risk of centralized DHCP server (fault, failure and etc.) In the circumstance in which RA would suffice, there is no need for a "centralized DHCP server" or the relay agent to get traffic to it. The same router that provides RA could answer a DHCPv6 information request with the options relevant to DNS. John #---------------------------------------------------------------------- # To unsubscribe, send a message to <dnsop-request@cafax.se>.