On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > I want a spec which is simple and clear, and less than 15-20
> > pages long.
>
> That would certainly be nice, but I don't think we should base our decision
> on the length of the specifications for the proposed solutions ;-)
>
> Benefits of the RA approach I can see are:
>
> o no need to implement DHCP clients in all hosts
> - this could be important for very simple network devices
o no need to run DHCP clients in all scenarios
- I certainly would not have any need to run DHCPv6(lite) on IETF
WLAN, discovering the recursive DNS is just enough.
If you roam a *lot* e.g. with a PDA and use Mobile IPv6, you may not
desire all that many functions from your care-of networks.
> o no need to solicit data explicitly
> - hosts will either hear an RA with the relevant data, or send an RS
> and get the name server details as part of the RA response. I don't support
> the idea of an 'active' mode whereby hosts can explictly request the DNS
> data. If the router(s) is/are configured with the name server data and are
> configured to advertise it then they will do so. Explicit requests only make
> sense if we anticipate explicit requests for other types of data, and I
> think this should be absolutely out-of-scope.
I'm not sure I'm 100% sure what's best myself, but there is one advantage
to the "active" model (it seems): it may be easier to handle if your RA/RS
processing happends in the kernel, but processing DNS info (including
rewriting /etc/resolv.conf) would have to be in the userland.
--
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]>.
