Hi all, > De : Erik Nordmark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > If we have statefull address autoconfig & stateful address > autoconfig, I > > think having an additional mechanism for getting DNS server > addresses is not > > a bad thing. At the transport layer, we have UDP, > UDP-lite, DCCP, TCP, > > SCTP ... to transfer packets. Having multiple ways to do > something is a > > reasonable solution. > > Two issues with multiple methods to configure the same thing that > hasn't been brought up are: > - potential impact on time to discover > Since each router advertisement doesn't need to contain all > options will a host need to listen for RAs for some time > before it decides it to DHCPv6 to find the info?
I agree, that is a generic issue when several mechanisms exist. You could also mentioned "will a host need to wait for DHCPv6 failure before it decides to uses well-known DNS resolver addresses" . > - conflicting information > A host might use DHCPv6 for other reasons/other information. > What should it do if the RAs and the DHCPv6 reply contains > different DNS information? Maybe should we require some architectural constraints to avoid such scenarios? Nevertheless in multihoming scenarios that remains a critical point. > What if different RAs received on the same interface contain > different DNS information? > For that last point, IMHO, DNS information transported in a RA should be associated to the prefix annouced in that RA. If several RA advertise several prefixes with different DNS information it's a matter of policy management on the host. Am I wrong ? Luc #---------------------------------------------------------------------- # To unsubscribe, send a message to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
