>
> > > too bad we could not reach consensus on DNS dicovery. i will do
> > > IPv6 tutorial at LACNIC next week, and again i will need to tell
> > > participants that there's no standard mechanism for DNS server
> > > configuration.
> > I'm not at IETF this week, but I'm following this from home.
> >
> > Your last statement is not 100% true. We already have DHCPv6 as an RFC.
> > The DHCPv6-lite is fundamentally a collection of hints to create a
> > simplified
> > implementation. So, there is already a standardized solution.
>
> by "no standard mechanism" i meant the lack of consensus in DNS server
> configuration mechanism. yes, you are right, dhcpv6 is already an RFC.
>
> itojun
other than the badness w/ wka, I fail to see the need to
continue w/ this "tempest in a teapot". Both RA and DHCP
will provide an IP address to a node that seeks for help.
presume that both are implemented...
in the case of one, the node gets one(or more) IP addreses
and a DNS server list. in the case of both, the node gets
one or more IP addresses and a DNS server list.
Thanks to Richard, source address selection is well understood.
just merge the DNS list and we are done... yes?
--bill
#----------------------------------------------------------------------
# To unsubscribe, send a message to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
