To:
<teemu.savolainen@nokia.com>
Cc:
<dnsop@cafax.se>, <jim@rfc1035.com>
From:
Ted Lemon <mellon@nominum.com>
Date:
Thu, 13 Nov 2003 12:57:19 -0600
In-Reply-To:
<D338C3A6DFB6BE4EA06F1A7494CEBD4601B6BCF3@trebe004.europe.nokia.com>
Sender:
owner-dnsop@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: DNS discovery
On Nov 13, 2003, at 11:34 AM, <teemu.savolainen@nokia.com> wrote: > I see that point as one reasoning to vote for cheaper IPv6 DNS > discovery mechanism than DHCPv6(-lite) with RTT cost and I wished to > share the reasoning with the group. Perhaps someone will correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think anybody is saying you shouldn't use a cheaper mechanism in a specific environment like this. That certainly wasn't what I meant when I said we should pick one implementation and standardize on that. All some of us are saying is that the fallback mechanism should be DHCPv6-lite, and that should always be available. If you want to provide RA, and the clients on your network support it, I think that's fine, and that cuts your round-trips down to one. But the minimal correct implementation should be minimal, and there are advantages, in the general case, to having DHCPv6-lite be the minimal correct implementation. I may be mistaken about this impression, though - some folks seem to be saying that we shouldn't even *allow* RA. That is certainly not my position. That *was* my position, before Tim pointed out that there's a bit for this in the RA, so I can understand why there might be some confusion. :'} #---------------------------------------------------------------------- # To unsubscribe, send a message to <dnsop-request@cafax.se>.