Re: [dhcwg] New Version Notification for draft-wing-dhc-dns-reconfigure-01.txt

"Prashanth Patil (praspati)" <praspati@cisco.com> Tue, 02 July 2013 14:12 UTC

Return-Path: <praspati@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3810E21F9EDC for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Jul 2013 07:12:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GXkYmQoHTjQq for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Jul 2013 07:12:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.86.74]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7928021F9E31 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Jul 2013 07:12:39 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2085; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1372774359; x=1373983959; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to: content-id:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=VrX4g7jBeukJ0/cfKKcaWwCg1fmTTZ8iCUvv05n6ejM=; b=VXldcl27O+l+z3VSoFTL0dnlLPnwcHUVydd+KtWBMpbKNQnXlaDeiF+r kvHwndq7tl69s+uFgySF81SDNKGTMPmWZCt5ahlxTAREiiHSh6FhAt6kC 3ccq6TMlpLt5BhWuHOcW67dqwA/nfM9pHFhfkqtQie7BXnWOKij4vFdTy 4=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AiAFAB3e0lGtJXG8/2dsb2JhbABagwl7v02BARZ0giMBAQEEOj0CEgEIGAoUQiUCBA4FCIgHvCqPKTEHgwRnA5N3lReDEYIo
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,980,1363132800"; d="scan'208";a="229966853"
Received: from rcdn-core2-1.cisco.com ([173.37.113.188]) by rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 02 Jul 2013 14:12:39 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x04.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x04.cisco.com [173.37.183.78]) by rcdn-core2-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r62ECd9w012355 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 2 Jul 2013 14:12:39 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x07.cisco.com ([169.254.7.39]) by xhc-rcd-x04.cisco.com ([fe80::200:5efe:173.37.183.34%12]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Tue, 2 Jul 2013 09:12:38 -0500
From: "Prashanth Patil (praspati)" <praspati@cisco.com>
To: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] New Version Notification for draft-wing-dhc-dns-reconfigure-01.txt
Thread-Index: AQHOY3uM9UALGIVfFEmPJoU9Kl4stpkq4qaAgCD5gwCABMu2gP///s0AgAGeyIA=
Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2013 14:12:38 +0000
Message-ID: <B235506D63D65E43B2E40FD27715372E1CE292C3@xmb-rcd-x07.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B6307751F61CD@mbx-01.win.nominum.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.4.130416
x-originating-ip: [10.68.21.163]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <94B15579BCF97945B908BFDCBD6CB6F4@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>, "Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy)" <tireddy@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] New Version Notification for draft-wing-dhc-dns-reconfigure-01.txt
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dhcwg>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2013 14:12:45 -0000

Hi Ted,

On 02/07/13 12:28 AM, "Ted Lemon" <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> wrote:

>(ad hat off)
>
>On Jul 1, 2013, at 9:32 AM, Prashanth Patil (praspati)
><praspati@cisco.com> wrote:
>> Yes, this was one of the suggestions made earlier. Notification from
>>relay
>> then becomes generic and not specific to DNS. The server decides
>>whatever
>> actions need to be done, such as reconfiguring DNS server lists.
>
>I'm sorry, but you did not answer my question.   The question was this:
>
>>> Why don't you just configure the DHCP server to return DNS servers in a
>>> different order for different links?   Links are identified by relay
>>> agent, so this gets you the precise behavior you want, but with a
>>> centralized configuration file rather than with per-relay
>>>configuration.
>
>That is, I am not suggesting this as an alternative.   I am asking you
>why you don't consider this to be a better alternative.
>
>The reason I ask is that what you are proposing is extremely harmful.
>You are requiring new special protocol extension with new special-case
>code to be added to the DHCP server to handle this use case, and you are
>requiring that relay agents throughout the network be individually
>configured to specify behavior on the DHCP server, which is a maintenance
>nightmare.
>
>So if you want to do something this harmful, you should have a good
>explanation for why it's better than the alternative.

A static DNS order for different links introduces sub-optimal behavior
during transitions unless the servers are re-prioritized or until the host
stack re-initializes.
The draft proposes that a relay indicate dynamic transitions of the host
to the server which the server cannot learn otherwise or at best until the
next request eg: Dual-Stack-only to IPv6-only transition. With some
generalization to the proposal, a DHCP server could provide desired config
updates in a more responsive manner when the relay notifies host mode
changes without specifying behavior eg "Host changed from mode X to mode
Y".

-Prashanth



>