Thomas,
At 07:18 AM 4/29/2002, Thomas Narten wrote:
> > There are issues raised in solutions like this to insure that the
> > co-located services are adequately tied together. For example in case
> of a
> > "DHCP server in the DNS server" the processes need to be tied together
> in a
> > manner that the DHCP process would not provide the address of the DNS
> > server if the DNS server process was down. Or that the DHCP server not
> > provide the addresses for other DNS serves unless it knows that they
> are up
> > and available.
>
>To clarify, are you saying that it is a requirement that a DNS server
>discovery mechanism only return the addresses of servers that are
>currently functioning? If so, I think this needs to be discussed
>more, because I think there are alternatives that may well also be
>acceptable.
I did not state it as a requirement. I was discussing it under the heading
of "Desirable aspects" of a solution. I wrote in the last paragraph of my
email:
"Picking a specific solution requires evaluating the strengths and
weaknesses of the specific solution. I think this falls into the
"Desirable aspects" part of the text, as opposed to the basic
requirement."
Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
