IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: proposal for a compromise on DNS discovery

"BELOEIL Luc FTRD/DMI/CAE" <luc.beloeil@francetelecom.com> Tue, 29 July 2003 14:06 UTC

Received: from nic.cafax.se (nic.cafax.se [192.71.228.17]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA23440 for <dnsop-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 10:06:31 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0) with ESMTP id h6TDmL8W005304 for <dnsop-outgoing@nic.cafax.se>; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 15:48:21 +0200 (MEST)
Received: by nic.cafax.se (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0/Submit) id h6TDmLJl005303 for dnsop-outgoing; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 15:48:21 +0200 (MEST)
X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-dnsop@cafax.se using -f
Received: from p-mail2.rd.francetelecom.com (p-mail2.rd.francetelecom.com [195.101.245.16]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0) with ESMTP id h6TDmK8W005298 for <dnsop@cafax.se>; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 15:48:20 +0200 (MEST)
Received: from FTRDMEL1.rd.francetelecom.fr ([10.193.117.152]) by parsmtp2.rd.francetelecom.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Tue, 29 Jul 2003 13:56:06 +0200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6375.0
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: RE: proposal for a compromise on DNS discovery
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 13:56:05 +0200
Message-ID: <C331E5A29B51A84E9755E834A3E619D10F9F6F@ftrdmel1.rd.francetelecom.fr>
Thread-Topic: proposal for a compromise on DNS discovery
Thread-Index: AcNVHPFupaNgCoTEQSq50pX3dYTWmwAqcQvQ
From: BELOEIL Luc FTRD/DMI/CAE <luc.beloeil@francetelecom.com>
To: Ralph Droms <rdroms@cisco.com>, dnsop@cafax.se
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Jul 2003 11:56:06.0984 (UTC) FILETIME=[64D27480:01C355C8]
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by nic.cafax.se id h6TDmL8W005299
Sender: owner-dnsop@cafax.se
Precedence: bulk
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Hi Raplh, 

thank you for that precision.

draft-ietf-ipngwg-dns-discovery-01.txt had a whole section (6.1 DHCP)
concerning DHCP. But It seems some other points could also be added to
section 5 (Transport Mechanisms) so as to refer explicitly to DHCP.

Do you think it would be valuable to work again on that draft?

Luc

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Ralph Droms [mailto:rdroms@cisco.com]
> 
> 
> What was missing in the original DNS discovery work is that
> it explicitly ruled out DHCPv6 a priori...
> 
> - Ralph
> 
> At 05:03 PM 7/28/2003 +0200, BELOEIL Luc FTRD/DMI/CAE wrote:
> >
> >Then what is(are) the solution(s):
> >- RA-based
> >- DHCPv6-lite
> >- Anycast Addresses for resolver DNS server
> >- SLP (I also like SLP, which already a RFC - Standards 
> Track - !!! Does
> >anybody have a good point against SLP ?)
> >- well-known link-local addresses (+ DNS proxies...)?...
> >
> >There was a analysis made by the DNS Discovery Design Team 
> in march 2001
> >(draft-ietf-ipnwg-dns-discovery-01.txt). Wouldn't it be 
> valuable to go
> >on or to restart such a work ? (instead of this no-end 
> battle?) I must
> >have missed something concerning this old work. Could anyone give me
> >some pointers or summary?
> >
> >Luc
> >
> >#------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> ># To unsubscribe, send a message to <dnsop-request@cafax.se>.
> 
> #-------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------
> # To unsubscribe, send a message to <dnsop-request@cafax.se>.
> 

#----------------------------------------------------------------------
# To unsubscribe, send a message to <dnsop-request@cafax.se>.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email