On Thursday, February 20, 2003, at 10:25 PM, Pekka Savola wrote:
On Thu, 20 Feb 2003, Alain Durand wrote:On Thursday, February 20, 2003, at 12:03 PM, Ralph Droms wrote:If it's unclear, then we should edit the document to explicitly identify the addresses as IPv6 addresses.
This option is intended to return IPv6 configuration information. IPv4 addresses for DNS resolvers should be provided through DHCPv4...
I symphatize with this -- there are some uses to have DHCPv6 return IPv4
addresses too -- but the result would just make the dnsconfig option more
complex for little benefit. Let's face it: if you deploy DHCPv6, you
really should have long since deployed IPv6-enabled nameservers too.
So, I think clarifying the scope to do only IPv6 seems like the best option by far.
Some may scream at this idea, but couldn't we pass an IPv4-mapped address
in there? The DHCPv6 client could recognize this special format
to mean this is actually a v4 address?
Now, let's say that this is the case for DHCP, what should a node that act both as a DHCPv4 and DHCPv6 client do when it will be returned two lists of recursive DNS serves, one IPv4 via DHCPv4 and one IPv6 via DHCPv6. Which one should take priority?
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.
-------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
