Erik,
I know there is considerable prejudice against SLP as a solution to the
general problem, but it certainly is available. It supports discovery
without a 3rd party. The only definitive criticism that I've ever heard
about SLP is the coupling of a directory service function with service
discovery.
I think a place to start might be understanding what SLP does and why
its critics don't like it.
jak
----- Original Message -----
From: "Erik Nordmark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 8:28 AM
Subject: DNS discovery thoughts
>
> I've been thinking about the DNS discovery, as well as the larger
> "service discovery with no 3rd party dependencies" issue, for a while.
>
> Just like Steve Deering and many others I'd like the IETF to explore
> the larger issue, since I'm very much interested in making the future
> Internet more robust than what we have today.
> But this effort needs to be done carefully to make sure that we
> are solving a well-defined and well-constrained problem. Thus I think
> it would make sense to hold a BoF on this topic (perhaps in Yokohama
> if there are folks willing to work on putting such a BoF together
> in the very short time that remains).
>
> Level 1 of the current DNS discovery draft is likely to set a
precedent
> that well-known unicast addresses will be allocated for services.
> The IETF has never done that before - we've only allocated well-known
> *multicast* addresses for services.
> Going down the path of allocating well-known unicast addresses,
> even if they are site-local addresses, is something I would be
> very uncomfortable doing, especially if it is done as a "quick fix"
> for a short-term DNS discovery solution without knowing what a
potential
> future "service discovery with no 3rd party dependencies" scheme might
> look like. This concern appears to be shared by some other IESG
members
> based on some discussions last week.
>
> These concerns would probably be less strong if the fixed unicast
> address was one part of a larger architecture, in which the
reservation
> of fixed address was limited and necessary as part of an overall
solution.
> Instead, it appears that this particular choice is being driven by a
> particular short-term problem with no apparent relationship to future
and
> more general work.
>
>
> So if I was an implementor that wanted a DNS discovery solution as
> soon as possible, I'd just go with DHCPv6 information-request for now,
> while participating in the larger, and necessarily longer term,
discussions
> about "service discovery with no 3rd party dependencies".
>
> Comments?
> Erik
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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]
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
