>>>>> On Wed, 13 Mar 2002 13:23:39 -0500,
>>>>> Rob Austein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> The level 1 compliance stuff is only simple in the case of a single
> subnet. As soon as you have routers between the client and the
> server, you have to do something to get the packets across the router.
Correct, and the "something" is to advertise the corresponding host
route(s) in the site's routing system. I'm actually living with this
configuration.
> I suppose we could have a discussion about whether magic unicast
> addresses (which are really a limited special case of anycast) are
> better or worse than multicast, but I doubt that such a discussion
> would change any minds.
You're probably right, if we want to decide which is "better".
However, I'm quite sure that the unicast/anycast approach is easier to
deploy than the multicast one (whose scope is larger than link-local).
(Again) the unicast/anycast approach has already run in my environment
using a commercial routers. On the other hand, I don't know router
products that officially supports IPv6 multicast routing.
> The place where I do see a real difference is that
> draft-ietf-ipv6-dns-discovery-04 tacks new functions (service
> discovery and configuration) onto DNS.
If you're talking about the level 2 compliance, I agree with you. The
level 1 compliance does not need any new functions in DNS.
> DNS was not really designed
> for this, and while it's certainly possible (RFC-1925 2.(3)) I think
> it's better to use a protocol that was designed for these tasks,
> particularly if by doing so one also builds an infrastructure that
> makes it easier to solve other problems (eg, configuring NTP).
I agree here (thus I'm not so enthusiastic about the level 2
compliance.)
JINMEI, Tatuya
Communication Platform Lab.
Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
