> De : Pekka Savola [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > On Fri, 21 Feb 2003, BELOEIL Luc FTRD/DMI/CAE wrote: > > > > Implementation decision, but I guess typically the > results of the > > > > latest query take precedence. I don't see a problem > here, myself. > > > > > > Unpredictable behavior. Difficult to debug. > > > > > > - Alain. > > > > Good remark! I understand the point/issue if IPv6 provider > is not the > > same as IPv4 one. By that way the node may not have the same global > > vision of the Domain Name System! > > I'm having a difficulty seeing the point. A similar > situation happens if > the user has manually configured a few nameservers in > /etc/resolv.conf and > then runs either DHCPv4 / DHCPv6. > Yes
> Is it IETF's business to specify whether or not (and if so, how) the > entries should be overwritten, prepended/appended, etc. ? I'm really not sure. > Is this done > now with DHCPv4? > No idea. > I'm not so sure, but something like "DNS servers configured > through this > option should take precedence if some existed beforehand" would be > acceptable to me Note *no* RFC2119 upper-case keywords. > IMO, the "split vision of DNS" remark is useful for service architectures but may not be taken into account in some protocol specifications. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
