> Those are two different things. dns-resolver discovery is to be used > to locate a DNS resolver/server in last resort when no other information > for finding this server is available.
Reading the document I don't see a separate step where the DNS resolver/server is located. Instead I see that as a last resort DNS queries are sent to a well-known site-local unicast address. > LLMNR (at least to my understanding) is to be used > in last resort when the information had not been found in the DNS maps > (meaning you already have found a DNS server/resolver). As I understand the intent one goal is for LLMNR to work on a network consisting of just a few hosts, i.e. there might not be any router or DNS resolver. In that case a likely LLMNR usage end up being that when resolving host names as a last resort when DNS didn't return an answer, then use LLMNR. Thus I can't tell which of these last resorts should be the last one. > I thought that the IETF was in the business of specifying protocols, > not how people should implement them nor how people should > use them. > The best we can do here is to providing guidelines like > "use it only under those circumstances if you don't want to get hurt" I think that specifying protocols and folks implementing them is a bad idea unless the result is actually operationally useful. Thus ignoring operational issues as you seem to advocate doesn't make for quality IETF standards. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
