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

Re: RFC 5006 status

Hi Alain,


>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 âHow can we fix this messâ 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.

I agree. We need IPv4-like DHCP because it is needed in some networks and IPv6 autoconf also because it is needed in some other networks.

>
>Now, about this particular document:
>
>
>ÂÂÂÂ1. The interaction between DHCP & RA is not very well documented. 
>ÂÂÂÂ2. Why do we need a lifetime in that DNS RA? This create extra complexity for no apparent good reasons 
>ÂÂÂÂ3. 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?


This issue is MIF WG issue and I think there is a draft on this issue already.


Regards,

Behcet