RE: RFC 5006 status

["Tony Hain" <alh-ietf@tndh.net>]

This document needs to be standards track. There is no 'competition' between
auto-conf vs. dhcp, they serve different communities and need to stand
alone. The historic error in the IETF process was to require both stateful
and stateless to have any network operate. Each approach really need to
stand alone and be fully functional without dependency on the other. The
missing link on the auto-conf side is 5006, and it needs to be standards
track asap.

Tony

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of Gert Doering
> Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 9:28 AM
> To: Hemant Singh (shemant)
> Cc: Fred Baker (fred); IPv6 Operations; Lindqvist Kurt Erik; Ralph
> Droms (rdroms); 6man Chairs; Dave Thaler; Jari Arkko;
> jjeong@cs.umn.edu; luc.beloeil@orange-ftgroup.com;
> smadanapalli@gmail.com; Daniel Park
> Subject: Re: RFC 5006 status
> 
> Hi,
> 
> On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 11:14:47AM -0500, Hemant Singh (shemant) wrote:
> > What if
> > DNS configuration is fat-fingered on one router but not the other.
> 
> "Things will break if configured wrongly" is a funny argument to me.
> 
> 
> Regarding the original question, I'd expect client devices to merge
> multiple different DNS servers into a list, and use that.  Ordered by
> priorities.  Clients need to merge DNS server addresses from various
> sources anyway - there's still v4 around, and for the next 5 years,
> I expect people to use DNS over IPv4 *and* IPv6.  So admins might want
> to see a v4 and a v6 resolver in their clients' "/etc/resolv.conf"...
> 
> Gert Doering
>         -- NetMaster
> --
> Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations:  150584
> 
> SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
> Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-
> Culemann
> D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
> Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444            USt-IdNr.: DE813185279