In message <[email protected]>
Ted Lemon writes:
 
> On Sep 12, 2012, at 9:02 PM, Mark Andrews <[email protected]> wrote:
> > My machines have names.  Those names don't change as I move around
> > the world.  Random DHCP servers at coffee shops DO NOT have the
> > ability to update the DNS entries for those names.  They do have the
> > authority to update the PTR records in in-addr.arpa and ip6.arpa
> > namespaces.
>  
> We're not talking about mobile IP here—we''re talking about naming in
> the homenet.  The technology has existed for over a decade to do what
> you describe with DHCP and DDNS in IPv4, but AFAIK nobody uses it, for
> two reasons: one, I don't think it actually serves a real need, and
> two, it requires geek skills to set up, which most people don't have.
> But the second point is really a footnote to the first.

DHCP and DDNS is used in enterprise and not for mobility, except to
some extent mobility within the enterprise (laptops wandering to
conference rooms).  For anything that offers a service, meaning
anything useful to connect to, DDNS is used so that if IT rearranges
the wired ethernet, the server automagically has the same name but
shows up somewhere else.  In a past life IT tried to get me to do this
with a CVS/SVN server but their DDNS didn't work enough times that I
got them to go back to static entries.  You can do things like direct
SIP to a laptop with this and SIP URLs rather than (the far more
common) B2BUA.

> There's a draft in the DHC working group for setting up the reverse
> zone...

Did you mean:

  draft-lemon-dhc-dns-pd-01
  Populating the DNS Reverse Tree for DHCP Delegated Prefixes

Earlier in this thread you said:

> > Ted, respect your DHCP/DNS knowledge, but if we need a DHCP server
> > anyway in Homenet, why don't we go for the classic enterprise set up
> > that has run for years for IPv4, rather than trying to shoe horn
> > locally assigned SLAAC addresses i nto global DNS?
>
> Two reasons.  First, there's strong opposition to this, and so it will
> never happen, whether it is the right idea or not (I don't think it's
> particularly the right idea, although I'm not vehemently opposed to it
> either).  Secondly, it precludes the use of CGA by hosts.

There is also

  draft-ietf-dhc-cga-config-dhcpv6-02
  Configuring Cryptographically Generated Addresses (CGA) using DHCPv6

which is where I wondered why you said that CGA could not be used and
maybe I missed something.  In your opinion CGA cannot be used if
... SLAAC is not used?  ... DHCPv6 is used?  ... something else?
Since you made that statement, exactly what did you means.

Curtis
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet

Reply via email to