Erik, > > If we have statefull address autoconfig & stateful address > autoconfig, I > > think having an additional mechanism for getting DNS server > addresses is not > > a bad thing. At the transport layer, we have UDP, > UDP-lite, DCCP, TCP, > > SCTP ... to transfer packets. Having multiple ways to do > something is a > > reasonable solution. > > Two issues with multiple methods to configure the same thing that > hasn't been brought up are: > - potential impact on time to discover > Since each router advertisement doesn't need to contain all > options will a host need to listen for RAs for some time > before it decides it to DHCPv6 to find the info? > - conflicting information > A host might use DHCPv6 for other reasons/other information. > What should it do if the RAs and the DHCPv6 reply contains > different DNS information? > What if different RAs received on the same interface contain > different DNS information?
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. 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
