--On mandag, november 28, 2005 17:00:39 -0500 "Bernie Volz (volz)"
<volz(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com> wrote:
I confess that I don't see the problem. The updater would do a DNS
query for DHCID RRs; it would be given all of the stored
records.
That's not how the current update algorithm works. Sure, we could do
almost anything but we'll be debating this for the next 100 years. It
has already gone on for almost 10 years!!!
Can we get serious about this and really ask what are we trying to
protect.
And where were you folks when IPv6 was designed to use the mac address
as the interface identifier. Come on.
We're trying to make it NON-TRIVIAL, not impossible.
This technique has been in use for years by implementations using TXT
records because we've been unable to get the DHCID RR approved.
Bernie,
just checking....
this puzzle seems to have several distinct pieces:
- the DHCP options to talk about DNS names. Nobody seems to have any large
problem with that.
- the mechanism for detecting conflicts. Nobody seems to have any large
problem with that.
- the exact mechanism by which one stores a value identifying the client in
the DNS without giving out useful information about the client. That's
where all the shouting is.
Can you verify for me that all three parts are being done today in
production, in just the way (apart from RR type) specified in the I-Ds?
Harald
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf