[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: RFC 5006 status

Title: Re: RFC 5006 status
Fred,

Here is my input to this.

First of, we have in IPv6 two competing auto-config mechanisms: RA & DHCP. For a subset of parameters, they more or less overlap. For others, they do not.
DNS is in the later category, only in the standard track for DHCP. An example of what can only be discovered with RA is default router or prefix info.
This has been a very poisonous discussion for many years, with the result that the IPv6 autoconf story is more complicated that the IPv4 one.

At this point, I would favor opening the larger discussion of “How can we fix this mess” rather than pushing a particular technique from experimental to standard track.
It might be that the only acceptable answer is we need to defined BOTH mechanisms for every value to discover.

Now, about this particular document:

  1. The interaction between DHCP & RA is not very well documented.
  2. Why do we need a lifetime in that DNS RA? This create extra complexity for no apparent good reasons
  3. What is the host suppose to do when it gets DNS RAs from **different** interfaces? Should it treat them the same as if they came from the same interface? Or is it that the information is tied to the prefix, not to the interface?

In other words, it seem that the general cases beyond a single interface, single prefix are not well documented.

   - Alain.



On 3/17/10 11:18 AM, "Fred Baker" <fred@cisco.com> wrote:

This is a structured question for the community.

Jari Arkko tells us that he is getting requests from various sources to take RFC 5006 to Proposed Standard. It is now experimental.

http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc5006.txt
5006 IPv6 Router Advertisement Option for DNS Configuration. J. Jeong,
    Ed., S. Park, L. Beloeil, S. Madanapalli. September 2007. (Format:
    TXT=26136 bytes) (Status: EXPERIMENTAL)

(1) Please take a look at the document in the next few days; if you have comments on it (eg, you think it should be changed in some way), please comment to v6ops.

(2) Vendors, please advise on implementations. Are there any? Has interoperability been demonstrated?

(3) Operators, enterprise and/or service provider, please advise on deployment experience.


I'm adding a brief discussion to the agenda Monday morning with a view to getting a quick thumbs-up/thumbs-down to advise Jari, who can then take that to 6man later in the week if appropriate.



BTW, I have had a flurry of email related to the agenda. The current agenda may be found at http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/10mar/agenda/v6ops.html