[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Is there agreement on ddns (or any such) with autoconfigured hosts?



On Tue, 2005-06-28 at 15:12 -0400, Michael Richardson wrote:
>   They exist, but I haven't seen them. I'd run them. I see no way to do
> DDNS without state. I also see lots of reasons why I want state in my
> address configuration, something which the v6-purists never have
> comprehended. 
>   (It's because they mostly build routers and never think about
> applications) 

Well, you can actually say to some OS's to take the /64 from the RA and
append ::42 for instance and use that. One can also script that.

On linux just replicate the same IPv6 address as a /128 on all
interfaces and bingo it always gets used, because of the rather weak
source address selection routines.

>   I know of no feasible way to do DDNS for stateless-autoconfiguration
> hosts. 

The problem is the key for doing DDNS in the first place :)
I once cooked up this which solves the DDNS part:
http://unfix.org/~jeroen/archive/Windows_DynamicDNS_Update.zip

Which is the Windows variant for:
http://ops.ietf.org/dns/dynupd/secure-ddns-howto.html

>   This is a problem I'd like to solve, so that I can do wavesec.org on
> ipv6.

What is the exact problem, as I am missing a large detail of it :)
The above skips the DHCP server.

Greets,
 Jeroen

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


Reply to: