On Feb 26, 2013, at 6:04 AM, Fernando Gont <[email protected]> wrote: > -- I guess the thing with dynamic updates is that it doesn't work with > "zero configuration" (unless one assumes that updates on a local network > could be allowed to be unauthenticated?)
There are lots of ways to make dynamic update work on a local network that wouldn't be acceptable on an enterprise network. For instance, you could just say "if someone sends an update from an IP address, and that update installs an AAAA record pointing to that IP address, allow it." Or you could use the CGA-TSIG draft. Or you could use stateful DHCPv6. Or you could use stateless DHCPv6. Homenets aren't zeroconf--there has to be a way, at a minimum, to communicate a prefix and a DNS server address. This can be done with RA, or with RA+stateless DHCPv6, or with stateful DHCPv6. So in a homenet we can expect that there _will_ be a mechanism that _could_ be made to work for setting up DNS; the questions are: (1) Which ways do we support, if any? (2) How do we resolve the question of who is the local DNS server? As far as I can tell, this whole notion has been punted in favor of multi-subnet mDNS; my concern is that we are going to wind up with a new protocol that's a weird amalgam of mDNS and DNS but shares little code with existing implementations of either protocol/ _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
