Re: [dhcwg] Re: Last call for <draft-ietf-dhc-ddns-resolution-02.txt>

Mark Stapp <> Mon, 27 August 2001 22:29 UTC

Received: from ( [] (may be forged)) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA03101; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 18:29:58 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from (localhost []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA10107; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 18:27:00 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from (odin []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA10081 for <>; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 18:26:59 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ( []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA02989 for <>; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 18:25:37 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ( []) by (8.8.5-Cisco.1/8.6.5) with ESMTP id SAA00704; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 18:26:25 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 18:27:03 -0400
To: Stuart Cheshire <>
From: Mark Stapp <>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Re: Last call for <draft-ietf-dhc-ddns-resolution-02.txt>
Cc: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
X-Mailman-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <>


My anecdotal needs aren't the motivation for this specification. It is a 
common practice in many organizations to provide matching A and PTR RRs for 
each active host. Manually configuring those RRs and keeping them up to 
date is inefficient in DHCP environments. Dns updates are a very good 
solution to that problem. That's a different problem in some ways from your 
'roving host' situation, but it's a common problem. As you may know, Win 2k 
deployments for example don't work well without dns updates. In many 
networks, hosts don't go a-roving much, but administrators still derive a 
significant benefit from dns updates that are integrated into the dhcp 
exchange. Some form of that integration is offered by all the DHCP server 
vendors that I know of. A number of issues have arisen over time as DHCP 
and DNS updates have been deployed together, and those issues are the ones 
that motivated these specifications.

As I've written repeatedly, what's specified isn't intended to and doesn't 
prevent you from configuring your host as you have.

-- Mark

At 02:05 PM 8/27/2001 -0700, Stuart Cheshire wrote:
> >Personally, I don't particularly care whether my laptop can be 'reached'
> >using a stable dns name
>Now I'm really confused about why you're writing this draft.
>What is the point of doing dynamic DNS updates, if not so that your
>machine has a constant DNS name by which other hosts can refer to it?
>Stuart Cheshire <>
>  * Wizard Without Portfolio, Apple Computer
>  * Chairman, IETF ZEROCONF
>  *

dhcwg mailing list