Subject: RE: proposal for a compromise on DNS discovery

From: "BELOEIL Luc FTRD/DMI/CAE" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 17:03:33 +0200

> >     Daniel> Reality check: home networks are, if connected to the
Internet,
> >     Daniel> attached via a gatewaying device. The de vice of choice
for a
> >     Daniel> large number of networks is a $60 router from on of any
number of
> >     Daniel> vendors. These boxes provide DHCP, DNS forwarding and
> >     Daniel> NAT. Perhaps some other environment would provide a
better
> >     Daniel> strawman? DHCP is pretty prevalent in home networks.  
> > 
> >   Right, exactly.
> > 
> >   I simply do not believe that there are environments where there
will be
> > a local (on wire) DNS server, but not a local DHCP server. The home
> > environment is entirely the opposite - local DHCP server in SOHO
router
> > that gets the DNS info from the ISP via DHCP and/or PPP and passes
it on via
> > DHCP. 
> 
> Right.
> 
> And, having such DHCP servers, there is no role of RA for stateless
> (nor stateful) autoconfiguration, which is why IPv6 with ND is broken.
> 
> The remaining problem is configuration on how to let the DHCP
> server in SOHO router get the info and the solution should be
> related to anycast.
> 
> DNS server with anycast addresses does not neet intermediate DHCP.
> 
> 							Masataka Ohta
> 

Ok DHCP servers are embedded in current IPv4 SOHO router. This is cheap
and efficient. But this is not a valid argument to to say that DHCP is
THE only valid solution to announce DNS resolver server IPv6 address.

SOHO routers, that are currently on market, are using a DHCPv6 client to
be configured by the ISP but are using ND-based stateless address
autoconfiguration to help local hosts to configure their IPv6 addresses
!

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 <[email-masked]>.

---

From: Masataka Ohta <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 11:07:10 +0859 ()

Luc;

> have missed something concerning this old work.

What has been missing is a clear definition on the requirement.

Lacking it, IPv6 WG has been poorly managed that its past work
is not only useless but also harmful.

							Masataka Ohta

---

From: Doug Barton <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 20:14:54 -0700 (PDT)

On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, BELOEIL Luc FTRD/DMI/CAE wrote:

> Ok DHCP servers are embedded in current IPv4 SOHO router.

There, and LOTS of other places.

> This is cheap and efficient. But this is not a valid argument to to
> say that DHCP is THE only valid solution to announce DNS resolver
> server IPv6 address.

DHCP in SOHO networks alone isn't, no. However, the fact that just about
every network of any size has, or can easily deploy dhcp(lite) is.

> on or to restart such a work ? (instead of this no-end battle?)

The "battle" would end if the RA DNS proponents would stop re-proposing
it. :)

Doug

-- 
Angel:  We need you to distract the vampires.
Buffy:  Right.
Xander: What are you going to do?
Buffy:  I'm going to kill them all. (Walking away)
	That oughta distract them.
  "When She Was Bad" - Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Season 2 Episode 1
#----------------------------------------------------------------------
# To unsubscribe, send a message to <[email-masked]>.