Erik Nordmark wrote:
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?
A few points on your last issue. The NDP spec does state that if two routers detect conflicting info in the RAs that they should log a warning.
That approach will help the operator with fixing the conflicting info, but doesn't benefit the nodes that are receiving that info. For them, perhaps what we should do is state that they should honor the RA coming from the router with the lowest IPv6 address.
By doing that, operators can assign some level of priority to their RAs.
Regards, Brian
-------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
