Re: [dhcwg] Review of Service-Discovery-Type options in DHCP

At 05:54 AM 7/16/2002, Stuart Cheshire wrote:
>At the Yokohama meeting I pointed out that many DHCP options carry 
>information that might be better served via an explicit service discovery 
>mechanism.

Yes, but where host configuration should be managed by the network operator, 
DHCP is an appropriate mechanism. Why make it more complicated?

>Common practice is that most companies have a hostname of the form 
>"www.company.com." which resolves to the address of the company's web 
>server.
>
>Similar examples are:
>
>ntp.company.com.     (NTP Time Server)
>mail.company.com.    (Incoming mail)
>smtp.company.com.    (SMTP relay for outgoing mail)
>pop.company.com.     (POP mailbox host)
>imap.company.com.    (IMAP mail access)
>
>This is an ugly solution for two reasons:
>1. It is a misuse of DNS host names to name things that are logical 
>services, not hosts.
>2. The names are not standardized --
>is it "ntp.company.com.", or "time.company.com." ?

This is not just common practice it is BCP 17 - RFC 2219, which documents a
  "sensible set of
   defaults which may be used as an aid in determining the hosts which
   offer particular services for a given domain name."

John

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg