On Nov 9, 2014, at 3:28 PM, Paul Ebersman <list-dn...@dragon.net> wrote: > It's a nice thought. But considering how little we've converged on SLAAC > vs DHCPv6, random assignment vs eui-64 vs static for host ID, RFC 6106 > vs DHCPv6 DNS, etc. (and I won't even start on how many IPv6 transition > techs there are), any consensus on "better" is going to be a fascinating > trick.
This is not an accurate representation of the situation. There are some people who see DHCPv6 versus SLAAC as an ideological problem rather than a choice between features, but this is completely orthogonal to the DNS issue. There is real work going on on the DNS problem, and while it's not clear everyone will want to deploy a nice solution, I don't think there's any serious argument within the IETF that such a solution should not be deployed, nor is there serious contention over how to do it (although there are several options). I don't _think_ there are any ideological disputes; the question is simply which solution is best for any particular use case. And, of course, actually getting the documents done that describe the several different ways of approaching the problem. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
