To:
Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
CC:
dnsop@cafax.se
From:
Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Date:
Thu, 06 Nov 2003 23:04:53 +0900
In-Reply-To:
<20031106090223.GC2795@login.ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Sender:
owner-dnsop@cafax.se
User-Agent:
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax)
Subject:
Re: How IPv6 host gets DNS address
Tim; > 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. Wrong. It's ND which is off the table. > 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. It is clear. Masataka Ohta #---------------------------------------------------------------------- # To unsubscribe, send a message to <dnsop-request@cafax.se>.