On Wed, 7 Jul 2004, Suresh Satapati wrote: > > 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.
OK, but.. > > 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. .. this probably has an impact if you consider the mechanisms for configuring the CPE or the node acting as v6 CPE. For those nodes inside the network .. there's probably little difference. > > 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. The text above needs to be clearer whether you thought to apply stateless DHCPv6 to configure the parameters on the CPE, or to apply it to configure the parameters at the nodes in the network. This also has a connection with prefix delegation (with DHCP), as it requires full DHCP, not stateless. > > 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.. OK > > 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. There is a difference if you consider how you would configure DNS servers on the CPE. If the CPE has v4 capability, you don't need to (but you still can), as the CPE could act as a resolver. If it doesn't have v4 capability, it needs to be configured with an address of a recursive resolver. -- 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
