Hi,
Ralph suggested changing section 5.2 on DNS resolver discovery to
better reflect to what's out there (but not reflect that there is no
consensus on the approach). I think the proposed wording is a bit
biased toward using DHCP but not much.
I'd slightly modify his proposal to:
A host can be configured with a list of DNS recursive resolvers
through the DHCPv6 "DNS Recursive Name Server" option [RFC3646].
This option can be passed to a host through a subset of DHCPv6
[RFC3736]. Two alternative mechanisms are under consideration:
the use of well-known addresses [21] and the use of Router
Advertisements to convey the information [22].
No consensus has been reached as of this writing (April 2004).
What does the WG think about this -- That is,
Do you have a problem with the above wording?
If yes, I won't adopt it, but use the original unless there are
other suggestions.
If not, I'll use the rewording above, or something close to that.
On Wed, 7 Apr 2004, Ralph Droms wrote:
> I don't think section 5.2 accurately reflects the current state of
> specifications and discussion about recursive DNS resolver configuration:
>
> 5.2 Recursive DNS Resolver Discovery
>
> Recursive IPv6 DNS resolver discovery is a subject of active
> debate as of this writing (March 2003): the main proposed
> mechanisms include the use of well-known addresses [24], the use
> of Router Advertisements to convey the information [25], and
> using DHCPv6 (or the stateless subset of it [26]) for DNS
> resolver configuration [27]. No consensus has been reached yet.
>
> Note that IPv6 DNS resolver discovery is not required for
> dual-stack nodes in dual-stack networks as IPv6 DNS records can
> be queried over IPv4 as well as IPv6.
>
> I think the current situation regarding recursive DNS resolver configuration
> would be more accurately reflected by the following paragraph:
>
> 5.2 Obtaining a list of DNS Recursive Resolvers
>
> A host can be configured with a list of DNS recursive resolvers
> through the DHCPv6 "DNS Recursive Name Server" option [RFC3646].
> This option can be passed to a host through a subset of DHCPv6
> [RFC3736]. Two alternative mechanisms are under consideration:
> the use of well-known addresses [21] and the use of Router
> Advertisements to convey the information [22].
>
>
> I know this paragraph has been discussed before. It would be good to get
> other WG input to make sure the text reflects WG consensus on the subject.
>
--
Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
.
dnsop resources:_____________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop.html
mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop/index.html
