To:
dnsop@cafax.se
From:
"Eric A. Hall" <ehall@ehsco.com>
Date:
Fri, 07 Nov 2003 09:13:07 -0600
In-Reply-To:
<4.3.2.7.2.20031107054349.0459fc20@flask.cisco.com>
Sender:
owner-dnsop@cafax.se
User-Agent:
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007
Subject:
Re: Sense of the WG on DNS discovery
Ralph Droms wrote: > We discussed the issue of receiving multiple responses to the DNS > configuration information option in an ipv6 WG meeting. Turns out, in > theory, the order of appearance of DNS recursive name servers in the > list doesn't matter because every server should return the same > response to a given query. More generally, receiving multiple > different responses from DHCP servers (either IPv4 or IPv6) represents > a misconfiguration and is an operational problem - which could occur > with other DNS configuration mechanisms as well. Doesn't that dis-prove the claim that "A minimal DHCPv6-lite server co-located with a recursive name server [c]ould just respond with its own address"? (see <20030803000619.94C1E18E3@thrintun.hactrn.net> and its thread-context neighbors) So going this way means additional DNS-specific maintenance would be mandatory after all. -- Eric A. Hall http://www.ehsco.com/ Internet Core Protocols http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/ #---------------------------------------------------------------------- # To unsubscribe, send a message to <dnsop-request@cafax.se>.