Pekka, > On Wed, 19 Mar 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > I agree that any solution needs to take these 2 issues into > > account. In summary, the problems seem to be: > > > > 1) Ordering of solutions: which to try first and when to > try the 2nd. > > 2) How to resolve conflicting information. > > > > Both of these, I think are solvable, but I do agree that > the solution > > needs to propose them. > > Perhaps I'm naive but "implementation-specific" would be good enough for > me.
Well, at least some guidence in the draft would not be a bad thing. > Consider the case with IPv4. You've manually configured a couple of DNS > servers, then run DHCPv4 to get an address and DNS servers. > > Do you have to specify how to handle the case? > > The latest wins. Point taken. > Specifying too exactly how to handle these cases may be a rathole, and not > essential. If the users are not pleased with the result, they *will* just > disable the mechanism producing results they don't like. This is true as well. User preference is a good thing to enable. John -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
