If an RA option were to carry the IP address of the name server, that could be done within the framework of RFC 8106. That document already describes an RA option for advertising DNS servers to clients.
Regards, Brian On 4/29/19 5:28 AM, Ole Troan wrote: >> In a recent discussion in the DoH mailing list around a draft that describes >> resolver discovery, Martin Thomson made the suggestion[0] to use DHCP and RA >> options instead to transmit both DNS over HTTP resolver addresses, but more >> relevant to this WG also DNS over TLS endpoints as well. I have published >> draft-peterson-dot-dhcp, which describe the relevant DHCPv4, DHCPv6, and RA >> options to support this. >> >> Could I please get feedback, specifically if the WG is in support of it. > > I'm not very keen on yet another DNS configuration option. > But if you were to do it in the RA, I wonder if it wouldn't be cleaner to do > it with the universal RA approach: > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-troan-6man-universal-ra-option-01 > > Currently the DNS option is defined as (in CDDL): > dns = { > dnssl : [* tstr] > rdnss : ipv6-addresses : [* tstr] > ? lifetime : uint > } > > And you could just add a new attribute for transport: > > dns = { > dnssl : [* tstr] > rdnss : ipv6-addresses : [* tstr] > ? lifetime : uint > transport : "udp" / "tls" / "https" > } > > Ole > > _______________________________________________ > dns-privacy mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ dns-privacy mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
