To:
dnsop@cafax.se
From:
SHIRASAKI Yasuhiro <yasuhiro@nttv6.jp>
Date:
Fri, 07 Nov 2003 13:33:51 +0900 (JST)
In-Reply-To:
<4.3.2.7.2.20031106221405.046bdd80@flask.cisco.com>
Sender:
owner-dnsop@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: Sense of the WG on DNS discovery
DHCPv6-full (for host) and DHCPv6-PD (for CPE) has timers such as T1, T2, and lifetimes, so clients poll their servers periodically and could realize a DNS recursive name server renumbering as a "side effect". Because DHCPv6-lite and DNS Recursive Name Server option has no timer, once a client configured its address with RA and knew a DNS recursive name server address with DHCPv6-lite, a chance for the client to realize a renumbering might be its reboot. On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 22:18:37 -0500, Ralph Droms <rdroms@cisco.com> wrote: > Fair enough, but asynchronous notification of configuration changes hasn't > been a requirement in IPv4 (well, there is the FORCERENEW message in RFC > 3203; as far as I know there are no implementations of RFC 3203). Why would > it be needed for IPv6? > > - Ralph > > At 11:29 AM 11/7/2003 +0900, SHIRASAKI Yasuhiro wrote: > > > 1. a "stateless" subset of the current DHCPv6, as specified in > > > draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateless-01.txt > > > 2. an extension to the current DHCPv6 that has the ability to > > > multicast the stateless information (that I guess Alain first > > > proposed) > > > > > (i). In what way is DHCPv6-lite insufficient? > > > >DHCPv6-lite has no way to inform a DNS recursing server renumbering. > >A DHCPv6-lite server could send Reconfigure messages for its clients, > >if the server hold a client list, but it's not -lite. > > > >DHCPv6-lite with a multicast extension might help this. -- SHIRASAKI Yasuhiro @ NTT Communications t: +81-3-6800-3262, f: +81-3-5365-2990 #---------------------------------------------------------------------- # To unsubscribe, send a message to <dnsop-request@cafax.se>.