RE: How IPv6 host gets DNS address

[Ralph Droms <rdroms@cisco.com>]

Luc, Pekka,

Please see draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateless-01.txt, which is
in IETF last call.  It gives the subset of DHCPv6 that must be implemented
for host configuration without address assignment.

"another process on the server side" is an implementation detail.  Because
the DHCPv6 function for host configuration maintains no dynamic per-client
state, the code can, in fact, be implemented as code that is executed in
the same way as router solicitation code.  I strongly believe, based on
implementation experience, that the implementation complexity of DHCPv6
for host configuration is *not* prohibitive.

Another way to phrase the quesion about consensus is "do we have consensus
about a specific function or functions that DHCPv6 does not meet for host
configuration such as DNS?"  I think this problem is solved RFC 3315 and
draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateless-01.txt.  There are multiple independent
implementations that have demonstrated interoperability at TAHI,
Connectathon and the DHCPv6 interop tests run by NEC in Vienna.

We have other significant problems to solve to complete the IPv6
name-and-address management story - most importantly at this point, how do
we arrange for population of PTR records by roaming hosts using stateless
address autoconfiguration?  We should be spending our cycles on those
problems...

- Ralph

On Wed, 5 Nov 2003, BELOEIL Luc FTRD/DMI/CAE wrote:

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