To:
dnsop@cafax.se
From:
Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date:
Wed, 12 Nov 2003 21:07:11 +0000
Content-Disposition:
inline
In-Reply-To:
<00E0551A-154E-11D8-879F-000A95D9C74C@nominum.com>
Mail-Followup-To:
dnsop@cafax.se
Sender:
owner-dnsop@cafax.se
User-Agent:
Mutt/1.4i
Subject:
Re: DNS discovery
On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 02:22:57PM -0600, Ted Lemon wrote: > > This has nothing to do with what we are talking about right now, except > that DHCPv6 and DHCPv6-lite share the same transport. I've heard you > repeat several times that the stateless bit in the router advertisement > can be used to say which mechanism to use, but that is completely > wrong, because in using this bit in the way you propose, we would be > making two changes to the behavior of the client, not one - it could, > as you say, use DHCPv6 to get its DNS address, but it would also be > required to use DHCPv6 to get its IP address. We are specifically Ted, I don't understand here, it seems to me from the spec that (in p.18 of RFC2461, and in the usage text in RFC2462) that the M and O bits are independent; i.e. a statelessly autoconfiguring host could get DNS info from DHCPv6 with M=0 and O=1. With M=0 and O=0 one would then assume that an RA-based method could be used, and not clash with any DHCPv6...? Could you clarify what I'm missing? > trying to avoid placing any such requirement on a network - stateless > addrconf has to be orthogonal to how the DNS server address is > obtained, because the two things are completely unrelated. I guess not everyone agrees with that :) Tim #---------------------------------------------------------------------- # To unsubscribe, send a message to <dnsop-request@cafax.se>.