I agree with most comments from Jinmei, but here's one which requires a comment..
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004, JINMEI Tatuya / [ISO-2022-JP] [EMAIL PROTECTED]@C#:H wrote: [...] > 7. Section 3.1.2 (Disadvantages of the RA option) > > I think this document should include another disadvantage of the RA > option: we need to configure the RDNSS addresses at least at one > router on every link where this information needs to be configured by > this mechanism. > > If there is a hidden assumption that the router can be autoconfigured > with the RDNSS addresses by DHCPv6, see comment 5 above. Also, if we > take this approach, one of the advantages of the RA option may > plummet: address renumbering case, since DHCPv6 may not be able to > update the address quickly. I personally don't think having a router which doesn't have any DNS servers configured is a very feasible scenario. All the routers I can quickly think of have a configured DNS server. But I think what you're saying in the second paragraph is slightly different. I.e., today's low-end router/NAT boxes have DNS servers, but those are configured using DHCPv4. How would DNS servers be configured on such boxes when they support v6? This is probably a good question. Note that in some environments, this may not be a problem (e.g., 3GPP) -- where you can assume that the first-hop router is a real, manually configured router, not a low-end CPE. -- 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
