Re: other comments on draft-nielsen-v6ops-3GPP-zeroconf-goals-00. txt

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@consulintel.es>]

Hi Alain,

I think is not really a summary what we need. The idea, in the analysis
document is to look at the pros and cons of every possible solution.

Pekka just did a very good job mainly with the cons for NAPTR, so I guess it
will be good if you can summarize the cons that we may be missing.

Your suggestion about how to approach the solution document seems quite good
to me. We can try to look into the different type of scenarios and see what
pros and cons has each possible solution, but I think is much easy and we
will come out to the same conclusion with the existing layout. May be I'm
wrong on this anyway.

Actually when you talked to me about your view on the reverse DNS, I was
initially very convinced, but when back in Madrid, checking pros and cons,
we come out to some of the (mainly) negative points (versus forward DNS),
which Pekka summarized already.

But agree, we should take a look again to all the options.

Regards,
Jordi


> De: Alain Durand <Alain.Durand@Sun.COM>
> Responder a: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org
> Fecha: Fri, 05 Nov 2004 10:03:12 -0800
> Para: jordi.palet@consulintel.es
> CC: v6ops@ops.ietf.org
> Asunto: Re: other comments on draft-nielsen-v6ops-3GPP-zeroconf-goals-00. txt
> 
> JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> 
>> Hi Pekka,
>> 
>> You mean including in the next version of draft-palet-v6ops-tun-auto-disc
>> something specific to 3GPP considerations ?
>> 
>> No problem in doing that. Will try to work on this next week, but can't
>> promise being so fast this time !
>> 
>> Also, we have already some text regarding NAPTR, but we can expand if
>> required. Any specific suggestion or text that someone want to propose ?
>>  
>> 
> Jordi,
> 
> I could send you some text summarizing the NATPR solution,
> but this is not what is needed the most at this point in time.
> 
> IMHO, we need to understand what are the real requirements
> of the different customers (read assisted tunnels, zero conf & 3GPP,
> potentialy others)
> and compare the different solutions with those requirements.
> 
> I believe that the 3 customers have the same fundamental need,
> i.e. a DHCP based solution won't work (difficult to deploy),
> there is a desire to match the underlying topology as well as possible,
> and the number of round-trip should be minimize, especially in the 3GPP
> case.
> 
> So, I agree with your conclusion in draft-palet-v6ops-tun-auto-disc-02.txt
> that a DNS based solution is the right approach. The point to discuss
> is should this be done in the forward or reverse DNS tree? I tend to preffer
> doing it in the reverse tree because it matches the physical topology.
> The only argument so far I've heard against it is the number of packet
> exchange necesssary,
> (2 instead of 1) however there is a solution to that by padding data in
> the additional section,
> same as what is done for CNAME.
> 
> I hope we could find time in D.C. to discuss this further and have the
> wg come
> with a single recommended solution.
> 
>   - Alain.
> 
> 



**********************************
Madrid 2003 Global IPv6 Summit
Presentations and videos on line at:
http://www.ipv6-es.com

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.