RE: How IPv6 host gets DNS address

["BELOEIL Luc FTRD/DMI/CAE" <luc.beloeil@francetelecom.com>]

sorry for the delay.

I agree with the point of Pekka. 

Moreover DHCP-lite means another process on the server side, where in
other solutions use existing processes (well-known adresses use routing
features, RA-based solution can be merged with RA deamon). Am I wrong ?

I do think that "complexity" may not be the most important criteria to
choose "the" solution. 

Is there a consensus on "we need first a solution to known how to
contact DNS resolvers" ? Is there a consensus on "the solution found
should also be able to give othe information other information (NTP,
SMTP server addresses, search path list, ...) " ?

Luc

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Pekka Savola [mailto:pekkas@netcore.fi]
> Envoye : mardi 7 octobre 2003 07:15
> A : John Schnizlein
> Cc : BELOEIL Luc FTRD/DMI/CAE; dnsop@cafax.se
> Objet : RE: How IPv6 host gets DNS address
> 
> 
> On Mon, 6 Oct 2003, John Schnizlein wrote:
> > At 10:32 AM 10/6/2003, BELOEIL Luc FTRD/DMI/CAE wrote:
> > >...
> > >Some do think DNS resolver address is enough. I agree with 
> that, when
> > >one trust its local network and/or when one just need simple Ip
> > >connectivity (see Pekka Savola example), DNS resolver 
> addresses is the
> > >only "information" to add to stateless address 
> autoconfiguration. There
> > >I have the feeling that DHCP-lite is still to complicated...
> > 
> > What is complicated about DHCP-lite?
> [...]
> 
> About 100+ pages of specification?
> 
> -- 
> Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
> Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
> Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
> 
> 

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