[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: Proposed IPv6 DNS Discovery Requirements




  > > 1. The DNS can inject a route. Do you see problems
  > >    with this?
  > 
  > Well, "the DNS" doesn't do routes, but I assume you meant the DNS
  > server.  Yes, there are issues:
  > 
  > a) DNS server now has to implement one or more routing protocols,
  >    which is a lot more code than, say, a stub DHCP server.
  > 
  > b) What's the security model by which the router decides whether to
  >    accept routing updates from the DNS server?

=> The same model that is used between routers
in the network. 
I was only listing them in point form here, but 
the details are already in the draft. 

  > 
  > > 2. Using Neighbour discovery and periodic solicitations.
  > >    Most people in the DT didn't like this option.
  > >
  > > 3. The cleanest way: extensions to MLD to allow a node
  > >    to join an anycast group.
  > 
  > These are both polling approaches, right?  

=> Yes.

Exactly the same 
  > issues Bob
  > suggested apply to the co-resident DHCP approach apply here: how
  > tightly coupled does the thing you're polling have to be to the
  > service you're providing in order for the poll to tell you 
  > whether the
  > service itself is available?

=> That's up to your implementation. 
The DNS is the only server using this address, 
so you can tie them together.


Hesham
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to majordomo@sunroof.eng.sun.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------