Re: Is there agreement on ddns (or any such) with autoconfigured hosts?
On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 09:45:55PM +0200, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> 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.
Agreed. Still, I'd rather make it more determinstic. A client
*could* select an address some other way as with the privacy
extensions. My XP test setup did exactly that.
> > 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
I'm looking to do something more akin to the stateless autoconfig. If
I need to install a key, then I might as well go to the trouble of
configuring DHCPv6.
>
> > 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.
I, too, am unclear what part of the problem is unsolvable.
Reply to: