Pekka, > 5.4.1 Case A: Gateway does not provide IPv6 at all > > ==> shouldn't this be mostly a non-op in this discussion? I mean, if the > gateway doesn't provide v6, then some node inside the network must be > dual-stack to do tunneling. If a node needs to be dual-stack, it can use > IPv4 DNS servers without problems. Or are you concerned that in such a
In this document, we are interested in "IPv6" (but not IPv4) DNS Server config approaches. I do agree with your statement that hosts can use IPv4 DNS servers, but that isn't what we are concerened about here. > network where v6 support is not provided there would be v6-only hosts in the > network? In that case I guess you're down to the case where the customer > has a node which is set up as a dual-stack router. Agreed. Which is why we'd need the config mechanism has to be some form of a tunnel. > > 5.4.2 Case B: A dual-stack gateway connected to a dual-stack ISP > > This is similar to a typical IPv4 home user scenario, where DNS > configuration parameters are obtained using DHCP. Except that > Stateless DHCPv6 is used, as opposed to the IPv4 scenario where the > DHCP server is stateful (maintains the state for clients). > > ==> again, are you talking of PE-CPE config or CPE-customer config? Again, > do you assume /64 prefixes or how do you envision prefix delegation being > done? Is there a value in dissecting further ? I thought Stateless DHCPv6 spec does describe how to do this. > > 5.4.3 Case C: A dual-stack gateway connected to an IPv4-only ISP > > This is similar to Case B. The tunnel for IPv6 connectivity > originates from the dual-stack gateway instead of the host. > > ==> did you mean similar to case A? I originally wrote 'case A'. I think Jeong changed it based on Christian's comments. I have to go back and read what his comments were.. > > 5.4.4 Case D: A gateway connected to an IPv6-only ISP > > This is similar to Case B. > > ==> not quite? the gateway either has no v4 at all, and can't act as a "DNS > proxy", or it has a tunnel some other ISP else where it can send v4 packets. > Again, are we interested in IPv4 at all here ? If not, I dont think the current text should change. > > -- > 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 > . dnsop resources:_____________________________________________________ web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop.html mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop/index.html
