Op 26 okt. 2012, om 08:44 heeft Lorenzo Colitti het volgende geschreven:
> On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 3:24 PM, Teco Boot <[email protected]> wrote:
>> But seriously: why are you not comfortable with this idea? We need a routing
>> protocol for the homenet anyway. A link-state routing protocol can carry
>> multiple TLVs, including TLVs for DNS servers. Routing protocols can be
>> authenticated. The devices that need to propagage DNS are likely going to be
>> home routers. Why not use the routing protocol?
>
> Because we need this info in all nodes. I'm not sure we shall have
> interactions between hosts and the routing protocol.
>
> You don't need to. You can have interactions between hosts and routers.
>> Well, let's see. You have an ISP that hands you a DNS server using DHCPv6.
>> You're also connected to a walled garden that hands you a global but
>> partitioned IPv6 address that can only reach the walled garden, and gives
>> you its own DNS server. You want things to work more than one hop away. How
>> would you implement this?
>
> BRDP.
>
> The question was not how to make routing work in such a setup, the question
> was how do you make DNS work such that the walled-garden DNS server (which
> could return REFUSED for anything not in the walled garden, like NTT's does)
> is used only for that zone.
BRDP provides pointers to DHCP server for each provisioning domain, where
servers may be multiple hops away. Hosts get addresses (DHCP or SLAAC) and then
can get the additional info with unicasted DHCP for each address, using the MIF
extensions. Maybe we have to tweak DHCP a little to support this.
Teco
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
