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

Re: "RFC 2461bis" issue: DNS configuration

On Thu, Oct 23, 2003 at 11:40:29AM +0200, Ronald van der Pol wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 23, 2003 at 08:39:37 +0100, Tim Chown wrote:
> > Iljitsch, I agree.  This has been discussed a lot on the dnsop list... 
> > there is currently no consensus about DHCPv6(Lite) vs RA-based discovery.
> This keeps popping up and we don't seem to be converging. Just before
> reading this thread I contacted some people about trying DHCPv6 on the
> MSP IETF network. I have no strong preference (yet) for either DHCPv6
> or RA. Let's just give DHCPv6 a try.
> What do you think of this idea?

Based on the "running code" maxim, sure :)
> > There seem to be a handful DHCPv6 implementations, but no stripped down
> > DHCPv6 Lite implementations yet (the Lite version not maintaining state
> > for IP leases etc).
> I tried KAME's dhcp6[sc]. It seems to work. Don't you consider this a
> stripped down DHCPv6 implementation?
> The client code is not very big, setup is easy and it even compiles and
> works on my MacOSX iBook.

I'll take a look.  Thanks.  

Note my view is that we will have DHCPv6 for DNS resolver discovery; to 
suggest otherwise is rather futile and counter-productive.  However I think
the RA method has environments where it may be suited.   SO we should run
with DHCPv6 tests now for this, and if we discover scenarios where the
fit is not good we push to fix that, and RA method may be an answer.


IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6