Subject: RE: draft-ietf-ipngwg-dns-discovery-00.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2001 22:18:10 -0500

just as a note I am in full agreement with my coauthors on the design team.

/jim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Dave Thaler [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday,March 29,2001 5:16 PM
> To: Bernie Volz (EUD) 
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
> [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
> [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
> [email-masked]; Dave Thaler
> Subject: RE: draft-ietf-ipngwg-dns-discovery-00.txt
> 
> 
> To add to what Erik said...
> 
> > Time to Deploy - It will take a little time since we need to 
> > clean up the DHCPv6 specification. This should not take long 
> > (and likely less time than developing a new mechanism and 
> > working out the issues with that). Routers and servers will 
> > need to have new software deployed (as well as clients, but 
> > hopefully DHCPv6 will become standard on them anyway). We 
> > could always define DHCPv6 operation for non-addresses now 
> > and work out the address issues in parallel.
> 
> This was one of the factors.  DHCPv6 needs both protocol 
> specification work by the DHC WG, and new code on DNS Servers.  
> The approach the team recommended requires no protocol
> specification work by any other WG, and no new code on
> DNS Servers.
> 
> > Business Motivation - This is exactly why DHCPv6 would be a 
> > better approach. It will benefit DHCPv6 as well. 
> 
> The business motivation for the DNS approach is stronger
> than the business motivation for the DHCP approach.
> (E.g. a DNS server vendor would prefer the DNS approach
> since it's less work.)
> 
> > Fate Sharing - Don't believe so. 
> 
> For DNS server discovery, there's a potential fate sharing
> issue if the mini-DHCP server isn't tightly integrated
> with the DNS server.  (For example, if the DNS server
> process dies, but the mini-DHCP server continues to
> give out the DNS server's address, there's a problem.
> Similarly, if the DNS server is handling requests,
> but the mini-DHCP server stops responding, there's
> a problem.)  Using DNS queries themselves has
> optimal fate sharing properties.
> 
> > Scenarios - Hosts connected over an NBMA link: This may be a 
> > problem but then DHCPv6 would suffer from the same problem.
> 
> The team's recommended solution works fine in this scenario.
> 
> -Dave
>