To:
Daniel Senie <dts@senie.com>
CC:
dnsop@cafax.se
From:
Doug Barton <DougB@dougbarton.net>
Date:
Fri, 07 Nov 2003 00:59:04 -0800
In-Reply-To:
<6.0.0.22.2.20031106084050.02557288@mail.amaranth.net>
Sender:
owner-dnsop@cafax.se
User-Agent:
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1
Subject:
Re: How IPv6 host gets DNS address
Daniel Senie wrote: > Adding additional methods increases complexity, as others noted. I agree > with the sentiment below that any need for additional complexity should > be the result of studying operational experience. I've made basically the same point in the past as well, but it bears repeating. As a client implementor, additional complexity should have a really good reason for existence. I haven't seen one articulated yet for RA dns discovery, and I've seen (and advanced) several good arguments against. Also, in answer to the question of whether someone has published stateless dhcpv6 implementation help, it seems the answer is yes: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateless-01.txt Doug #---------------------------------------------------------------------- # To unsubscribe, send a message to <dnsop-request@cafax.se>.