CC:
dnsop@cafax.se
From:
"Eric A. Hall" <ehall@ehsco.com>
Date:
Tue, 18 Nov 2003 17:03:15 -0600
In-Reply-To:
<20031118223953.GE31666@login.ecs.soton.ac.uk>
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: Renumbering DNS with stateless DHCPv6 - bug?
Tim Chown wrote: > On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 12:55:12PM -0500, Thomas Narten wrote: >>Personally, I think something along the lines of Bernie's suggestion >>seems the simplest. E.g., just define a lifetime that applies to all >>options that don't themselves have a lifetime. Client can then >>recheck at appropriate intervals. > > A timer is an improvement; at least then the timer could be tuned down a > bit like DNS TTL for a planned renumbering event, or for simpler events > like adding a new NTP server or changing the DNS search path. This is another area where the simplicity of using multicast well-known addresses for configuration requests provides a major inherent advantage: if none of the servers you previously discovered are responding anymore (or if an SOA timer has reset, or whatever), simply reissue the request. There's no need to get other services involved (EG, having the resolver pass a request to the DHCP agent), no need for external data, or any of that other stuff. -- 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>.