Thanks for your good comments. I agree with you at your two points. Especially, number 2 is the opinion of your co-author, Suresh. He will speak about your opinion.
Paul >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Christian Huitema" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: "Jaehoon Paul Jeong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Monday, June 07, 2004 1:28 PM >Subject: RE: IPv6 Host Configuration of Recursive DNS Server > >Two points: > >1) In the disadvantage of DHCPv6 section, you ought to mention that >there is a ensure that the DHCP server always returns an up-to-date >value for the address of the preferred recursive DNS server. In large >networks, this is not trivial: the notion of which server is closest >depends on routing configuration and on server status, all of which are >dynamic. In contrast, the anycast approach guarantees that the request >will reach the closest server. > >2) In the unmanaged case, you wrongly assume that case C is "like case >A". In fact, it is more like case B: if a gateway provides IPv6 >connectivity by managing tunnels, then it is also supposed to provide >access to a recursive DNS server. > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jaehoon Paul Jeong >> Sent: Sunday, June 06, 2004 8:57 PM >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Cc: V6OPS WG; DHC WG; IPv6 DNS Configuration; IPv6 WG >> Subject: Re: IPv6 Host Configuration of Recursive DNS Server >> >> Hi all, >> >> For 1 week, there have been no comments on our IPv6 DNS Configuraion. >> >>http://www.adhoc.6ants.net/~paul/publications/ietf-internet-draft/draft-ietf-dnsop-ipv6-dns-configuration-00.txt >> >> Does it mean that there is no problem about this draft and it is ok to >> request WGLC? :-) >> >> Paul . dnsop resources:_____________________________________________________ web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop.html mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop/index.html
