RE: [dhcwg] Re: WG last call ondraft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-opt-dnsconfig-02.txt

"BELOEIL Luc FTRD/DMI/CAE" <luc.beloeil@rd.francetelecom.com> Fri, 21 February 2003 11:20 UTC

Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA26255 for <dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Feb 2003 06:20:56 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h1LBRwd14435 for dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Feb 2003 06:27:58 -0500
Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1LBRwp14432 for <dhcwg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Feb 2003 06:27:58 -0500
Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA26214 for <dhcwg-web-archive@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Feb 2003 06:20:24 -0500 (EST)
Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1LBQup14316; Fri, 21 Feb 2003 06:26:56 -0500
Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1L9BNp06141 for <dhcwg@optimus.ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Feb 2003 04:11:23 -0500
Received: from p-mail2 (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id EAA23787 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Feb 2003 04:03:53 -0500 (EST)
Received: from parsmtp2.rd.francetelecom.com ([10.193.117.129]) by 192.144.74.32 with InterScan Messaging Security Suite; Fri, 21 Feb 2003 10:12:03 +0100
Received: from lanmhs50.rd.francetelecom.fr ([10.193.21.52]) by parsmtp2.rd.francetelecom.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Fri, 21 Feb 2003 10:07:14 +0100
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6375.0
Subject: RE: [dhcwg] Re: WG last call ondraft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-opt-dnsconfig-02.txt
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 10:07:13 +0100
Message-ID: <C691E039D3895C44AB8DFD006B950FB41BCD63@lanmhs50.rd.francetelecom.fr>
Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] Re: WG last call ondraft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-opt-dnsconfig-02.txt
Thread-Index: AcLZdJ2qzsJy1hb2SAuoytmUjyAg6AAEmgEg
From: BELOEIL Luc FTRD/DMI/CAE <luc.beloeil@rd.francetelecom.com>
To: Alain Durand <Alain.Durand@Sun.COM>, Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>
Cc: Ralph Droms <rdroms@cisco.com>, dhcwg@ietf.org, ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com, namedroppers@ops.ietf.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Feb 2003 09:07:14.0493 (UTC) FILETIME=[A01E86D0:01C2D988]
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id h1L9BNp06142
Sender: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Hi all, 

> De : Alain Durand [mailto:Alain.Durand@Sun.COM]
>
> On Thursday, February 20, 2003, at 10:25  PM, Pekka Savola wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, 20 Feb 2003, Alain Durand wrote:
> >> On Thursday, February 20, 2003, at 12:03  PM, Ralph Droms wrote:
> >>> If it's unclear, then we should edit the document to explicitly
> >>> identify the addresses as IPv6 addresses.
> >>>
> >>> This option is intended to return IPv6 configuration information.
> >>> IPv4 addresses for DNS resolvers should be provided 
> through DHCPv4...
> >
> > I symphatize with this -- there are some uses to have DHCPv6 return 
> > IPv4
> > addresses too -- but the result would just make the 
> dnsconfig option 
> > more
> > complex for little benefit.  Let's face it: if you deploy 
> DHCPv6, you
> > really should have long since deployed IPv6-enabled nameservers too.
> >
> > So, I think clarifying the scope to do only IPv6 seems like the best
> > option by far.
> 
> 
> Some may scream at this idea, but couldn't we pass an IPv4-mapped 
> address
> in there? The DHCPv6 client could recognize this special format
> to mean this is actually a v4 address?
> 

I feel ill at ease with such a solution. How your DHCPv6 client, running
a node, is aware that there is an IPv4 stack enable on that same node ?
If it is not, v4-mapped addresses could be harmfull, couldn't they ?

> 
> >
> >> Now, let's say that this is the case for DHCP, what should 
> a node that
> >> act both as a DHCPv4 and DHCPv6 client do when it will be 
> returned two
> >> lists of recursive DNS serves, one IPv4 via DHCPv4 and one IPv6 via
> >> DHCPv6. Which one should take priority?
> >
> > Implementation decision, but I guess typically the results of the
> > latest query take precedence.  I don't see a problem here, myself.
> 
> Unpredictable behavior. Difficult to debug.
> 
> 	 - Alain.
> 

Good remark! I understand the point/issue if IPv6 provider is not the
same as IPv4 one. By that way the node may not have the same global
vision of the Domain Name System! 
_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg