To:
Alain.Durand@Sun.COM (Alain Durand)
Cc:
bmanning@karoshi.com (bill), dnsop@cafax.se, itojun@itojun.org (Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino)
From:
bill <bmanning@karoshi.com>
Date:
Wed, 12 Nov 2003 15:17:39 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To:
<3FB2A90D.2020802@sun.com> from "Alain Durand" at Nov 12, 2003 01:41:33 PM
Sender:
owner-dnsop@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: DNS discovery
> bill wrote: > > > And its not like the IETF has not promoted two solutions > > in the past... can you say OSPF and ISIS? Sure you can. > > > > Except it is well understood that the two are mutually exclusive. > and restrospectively, wouldn't have we been better with just one? > (pick your favorite) depends on when you ask... 8 years ago, the choices were radically different than today. And given a specific topology in question, you would find one more efficent than an other one. And there are several documented cases where both were/are used in the same topology. so, I would posit that the answer to your question is -NO-. > As a general point, I believe the IETF should refrain standardizing > two or more solution to the same problem. One is enough. > Let's focus the energy on other problems that require immediate attention. Generally true, but as I have learned, "all generalizations are false. this is true of all generalizations." given both RA and DHCP are defined, implemented, and deployable, recognizing both and working on interoperability clearly moves the locus to an issue that requires immediate attention, e.g. what does a node do when presented with information from both RA and DHCP wrt which DNS servers are available for use? --bill #---------------------------------------------------------------------- # To unsubscribe, send a message to <dnsop-request@cafax.se>.