Subject: DNS discovery discussion

From: "Jaehoon Jeong" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 09:42:58 +0900

Hi IPv6 members.

As it seems that the discussion of DNS discovery is related to IPv6 wg, I send 
this issue to IPv6 wg for listening to IPv6 members' liberal opinions and
comments.

In this DNSOP meeting and mailing list, RA-based DNS discovery has been
being discussed in comparison with DHCP-based DNS discovery.
You can find the mails related to this issue in the following link;
 http://www.cafax.se/dnsop/maillist/2003-07/maillist.html

For consistent and time-saving autoconfiguration, I think, we need to adopt one of
two alternatives in sequence (stateless and stateful approaches). In IPv4 domain, 
DHCP is enough for the autoconfiguration. But, in IPv6, we introduced 
stateless autoconfiguration.

Like Tim's opinion, DNS information is missing in the current IPv6 stateless autoconfiguration. 
Of course, DHCPv6 is a good solution. However, in order to get only DNS information, 
it is so limited direction for all kinds of IPv6 networks, such as home network, 
HMIPv6, NEMO and MANET connected to the Internet, to adopt only DHCPv6-based 
DNS discovery. IMHO, RA-based DNS discovery is a really really good companion 
with DHCP approach, not enemy or competitor.

Just in order to announce DNS information, isn't to run  DHCPv6(Lite) overactive? 
RA-piggyback announcement of DNS information with prefix information is efficient 
in the respect of the amount of announced traffic.

In current Cisco router, we configure the addresses of recursive DNS servers for its own name resolution.
Therefore, the DNS servers' addresses have already been configured. We only have to use the information
so as to announce DNS information through RA message.

I think DNS discovery is indispensible in IPv6, as you know. RA camp including me continues to appeal
the need of RA-based DNS discovery for IPv6 working more flexibly even in the environment 
where there is no DHCPv6.
If many of IPv6 members think that RA-based DNS discovery is not necessary, there may be no reason to
discuss any more and the RA-based DNS discovery should not be suggested forever.

I wait for your liberal and frank criticism or opinions.

/Jaehoon Paul

--------------------------------------------------------------------
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-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Alain Durand <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 01:07:08 -0700

This discussion has been going on in the v6 wg for a while without 
success,
it is now to dnsop, let's go there and hope we'll make progress.
no need to crosspost, IMHO.

	- Alain.

---

From: "Jaehoon Jeong" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 10:20:12 +0900

That's Okay.
I appreciate your previous work related to DNS discovery until now.
I really hope we'll solve the issue successfully.
Thanks.

Jaehoon Paul