[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [dhcwg] Re: WG last call ondraft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-opt-dnsconfig-02.txt
[ post by non-subscriber. with the massive amount of spam, it is easy to miss
and therefore delete posts by non-subscribers. if you wish to regularly
post from an address that is not subscribed to this mailing list, send a
message to <listname>-owner@ops.ietf.org and ask to have the alternate
address added to the list of addresses from which submissions are
automatically accepted. ]
Hi all,=20
> De : Alain Durand [mailto:Alain.Durand@Sun.COM]
>
> On Thursday, February 20, 2003, at 10:25 PM, Pekka Savola wrote:
>=20
> > On Thu, 20 Feb 2003, Alain Durand wrote:
> >> On Thursday, February 20, 2003, at 12:03 PM, Ralph Droms wrote:
> >>> If it's unclear, then we should edit the document to explicitly
> >>> identify the addresses as IPv6 addresses.
> >>>
> >>> This option is intended to return IPv6 configuration information.
> >>> IPv4 addresses for DNS resolvers should be provided=20
> through DHCPv4...
> >
> > I symphatize with this -- there are some uses to have DHCPv6 return=20
> > IPv4
> > addresses too -- but the result would just make the=20
> dnsconfig option=20
> > more
> > complex for little benefit. Let's face it: if you deploy=20
> DHCPv6, you
> > really should have long since deployed IPv6-enabled nameservers too.
> >
> > So, I think clarifying the scope to do only IPv6 seems like the best
> > option by far.
>=20
>=20
> Some may scream at this idea, but couldn't we pass an IPv4-mapped=20
> address
> in there? The DHCPv6 client could recognize this special format
> to mean this is actually a v4 address?
>=20
I feel ill at ease with such a solution. How your DHCPv6 client, running
a node, is aware that there is an IPv4 stack enable on that same node ?
If it is not, v4-mapped addresses could be harmfull, couldn't they ?
>=20
> >
> >> Now, let's say that this is the case for DHCP, what should=20
> a node that
> >> act both as a DHCPv4 and DHCPv6 client do when it will be=20
> returned two
> >> lists of recursive DNS serves, one IPv4 via DHCPv4 and one IPv6 via
> >> DHCPv6. Which one should take priority?
> >
> > Implementation decision, but I guess typically the results of the
> > latest query take precedence. I don't see a problem here, myself.
>=20
> Unpredictable behavior. Difficult to debug.
>=20
> - Alain.
>=20
Good remark! I understand the point/issue if IPv6 provider is not the
same as IPv4 one. By that way the node may not have the same global
vision of the Domain Name System!=20
--
to unsubscribe send a message to namedroppers-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>