To:
dnsop@cafax.se
From:
Ralph Droms <rdroms@cisco.com>
Date:
Thu, 06 Nov 2003 22:18:37 -0500
In-Reply-To:
<20031107.112945.74748564.yasuhiro@nttv6.jp>
Sender:
owner-dnsop@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: Sense of the WG on DNS discovery
Fair enough, but asynchronous notification of configuration changes hasn't been a requirement in IPv4 (well, there is the FORCERENEW message in RFC 3203; as far as I know there are no implementations of RFC 3203). Why would it be needed for IPv6? - Ralph At 11:29 AM 11/7/2003 +0900, SHIRASAKI Yasuhiro wrote: > > 1. a "stateless" subset of the current DHCPv6, as specified in > > draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateless-01.txt > > 2. an extension to the current DHCPv6 that has the ability to > > multicast the stateless information (that I guess Alain first > > proposed) > > > (i). In what way is DHCPv6-lite insufficient? > >DHCPv6-lite has no way to inform a DNS recursing server renumbering. >A DHCPv6-lite server could send Reconfigure messages for its clients, >if the server hold a client list, but it's not -lite. > >DHCPv6-lite with a multicast extension might help this. > >-- >SHIRASAKI Yasuhiro @ NTT Communications >t: +81-3-6800-3262, f: +81-3-5365-2990 >#---------------------------------------------------------------------- ># To unsubscribe, send a message to <dnsop-request@cafax.se>. #---------------------------------------------------------------------- # To unsubscribe, send a message to <dnsop-request@cafax.se>.