RE: proposal for a compromise on DNS discovery

[Ralph Droms <[e-mail]>]

Luc,

At the top of page 2 of draft-ietf-ipngwg-dns-discovery-01.txt is the sentence:

    There are any number of ways that IPv6 hosts can discover information
    required to enable name resolution, in the absence of a DHCP server.

which I read to mean that the document is explicitly describing mechanisms
that do not use DHCP.  Section 6.1 simply suggests the use of DHCP message
formats in a new protocol for use between a host and a DNS server.

draft-ietf-ipngwg-dns-discovery-01.txt expired in September, 2001.  The 
most recent version, draft-ietf-ipv6-dns-discovery-06.txt, which describes 
the reserved site-local address mechanism, expired in February, 2003.  The 
latter document also, indirectly, assumes that DHCP is not available.

- Ralph


At 01:56 PM 7/29/2003 +0200, BELOEIL Luc FTRD/DMI/CAE wrote:
>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:[e-mail]]
> >
> >
> > 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 <[e-mail]>.
> >
> > #-------------------------------------------------------------
> > ---------
> > # To unsubscribe, send a message to <[e-mail]>.
> >

#----------------------------------------------------------------------
# To unsubscribe, send a message to <[e-mail]>.