To:
dnsop@cafax.se
From:
Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date:
Thu, 6 Nov 2003 09:02:23 +0000
Content-Disposition:
inline
In-Reply-To:
<0AAF93247C75E3408638B965DEE11A70038C522A@i2km41-ukdy.domain1.systemhost.net>
Mail-Followup-To:
dnsop@cafax.se
Sender:
owner-dnsop@cafax.se
User-Agent:
Mutt/1.4i
Subject:
Re: How IPv6 host gets DNS address
On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 08:21:29AM -0000, matthew.ford@bt.com wrote: > > From my perspective DHCPv6 has to be the only solution because multiple > solutions equals more complexity. I don't see any benefit to the > operator community from multiple solutions to this problem. It's possible the RA-based approach might be better suited to environments where there isn't an "operator" managing a DHCPv6 server, where basic connectivity and the requirement for a DNS resolver is all that is needed? But I agree at present it is not clear that we can justify two methods until specific cases where the RA approach is advntageous are identified, from operational experience. So I agree we should press ahead and get operational experience with DHCPv6 in real deployments. If there are clear gaps, then we can work on the RA (or an alternative) method. Well-known site locals are now off the table. Tim #---------------------------------------------------------------------- # To unsubscribe, send a message to <dnsop-request@cafax.se>.