On Mon, 14 Jul 2003, Masataka Ohta wrote:
> > Beforehand, I'd like to summarize my talk for today's
> > discussion about DNS Discovery and Autoconfiguration.
>
> Autoconfiguration, as expected by IPv6 folds, is just impossible
> that it is a pity that DNSOP WG is contaminated.
>
> Autoconfiguration is easy on a single link isolated from the
> Internet. But, that's all.
FWIW, my opinion on the subject;
DHCPv6-lite has been proposed as a means how to fix this problem.
My issue with DHCPv6-lite is that DHCPv6 spec is some 89 pages, and most
options are some 5 (or more) pages more, each.
Even though DHCPv6-lite is only a subset of that, it still requires
reading, understanding etc. a lot of it. It's much more difficult to get
the "big picture" of DHCPv6-lite this way.
Now, if we had specified DHCPv6 without address assignment (like I
suggested, but that's beside the point), and put all of the stateful stuff
("cruft") in a separate "extension" RFC, we'd be talking about an entirely
different issue.
I was a very simple to implement, robust mechanism that's easy to
understand. Reading 20 selected pieces of a large document fills that
requirement, IMHO.
I want a spec which is simple and clear, and less than 15-20 pages long.
--
Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
#----------------------------------------------------------------------
# To unsubscribe, send a message to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
