Your use of English was almost too subtle for me. I had to read your problem statement a couple of times before I realized you were turning around my basic assumption. So, rather than assuming stateless address autoconfiguration and trying to solve the PTR record population problem, we should solve the PTR problem by picking the right address configuration process.
I believe there are some sites who have come to the conclusion that DHCPv6 address assignment is the right deployment model, exactly because it avoids the PTR record problem as well as giving network administrators reliable information about mappings between devices and IPv6 addresses.
- Ralph
At 10:28 AM 11/6/2003 +0900, masataka ohta wrote:
Ralph;
We have other significant problems to solve to complete the IPv6 name-and-address management story - most importantly at this point, how do we arrange for population of PTR records by roaming hosts using stateless address autoconfiguration? We should be spending our cycles on those problems...
Wrong problem.
The problem to be solved (if not yet solved) is
how do we arrange for population of PTR records by roaming hosts using address autoconfiguration
and DHCP, rather than DHCP-lite, is, it seems to me, the only way to go.
I strongly believe, based on implementation experience, that the implementation complexity of DHCPv6 for host configuration is *not* prohibitive.
Compared to the implementation complexity of ND, yes.
The easiest, simplest and fastest way to go is to remove ND, a full set of useless features, entirely.
Masataka Ohta
#---------------------------------------------------------------------- # To unsubscribe, send a message to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
#---------------------------------------------------------------------- # To unsubscribe, send a message to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
