Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Re: Last call for <draft-ietf-dhc-ddns-resolution-02.txt>

From: Stuart Cheshire <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 14:05:11 -0700

>Personally, I don't particularly care whether my laptop can be 'reached' 
>using a stable dns name

Now I'm really confused about why you're writing this draft.

What is the point of doing dynamic DNS updates, if not so that your 
machine has a constant DNS name by which other hosts can refer to it?

Stuart Cheshire <[email-masked]>
 * Wizard Without Portfolio, Apple Computer
 * Chairman, IETF ZEROCONF
 * www.stuartcheshire.org

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
[email-masked]
http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg

---

From: Mark Stapp <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 18:27:03 -0400

Stuart,

My anecdotal needs aren't the motivation for this specification. It is a 
common practice in many organizations to provide matching A and PTR RRs for 
each active host. Manually configuring those RRs and keeping them up to 
date is inefficient in DHCP environments. Dns updates are a very good 
solution to that problem. That's a different problem in some ways from your 
'roving host' situation, but it's a common problem. As you may know, Win 2k 
deployments for example don't work well without dns updates. In many 
networks, hosts don't go a-roving much, but administrators still derive a 
significant benefit from dns updates that are integrated into the dhcp 
exchange. Some form of that integration is offered by all the DHCP server 
vendors that I know of. A number of issues have arisen over time as DHCP 
and DNS updates have been deployed together, and those issues are the ones 
that motivated these specifications.

As I've written repeatedly, what's specified isn't intended to and doesn't 
prevent you from configuring your host as you have.

-- Mark