IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> Fri, 28 June 2013 17:48 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.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 1A28221F9A77 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Jun 2013 10:48:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 H8wVcRf-lSjB for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Jun 2013 10:48:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod7og129.obsmtp.com (exprod7og129.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.122]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53B2021F848E for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 28 Jun 2013 10:48:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shell-too.nominum.com ([64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob129.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUc3MW9STWAFub6G9NsfLVij7/W9nBjJk@postini.com; Fri, 28 Jun 2013 10:48:17 PDT
Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by shell-too.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60B501B81D1 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 28 Jun 2013 10:48:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-01.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.131]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C118519005D; Fri, 28 Jun 2013 10:48:10 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Ted.Lemon@nominum.com)
Received: from MBX-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.133]) by CAS-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.131]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Fri, 28 Jun 2013 10:48:10 -0700
From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
To: "Prashanth Patil (praspati)" <praspati@cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] New Version Notification for draft-wing-dhc-dns-reconfigure-01.txt
Thread-Index: AQHOdCenS2HB7oYtEky7nP+0jJgy+Q==
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 17:48:10 +0000
Message-ID: <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B6307751F0BE8@mbx-01.win.nominum.com>
References: <B235506D63D65E43B2E40FD27715372E1CE1B742@xmb-rcd-x07.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <B235506D63D65E43B2E40FD27715372E1CE1B742@xmb-rcd-x07.cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [192.168.1.10]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <DA326EB2C8107F489E474BBDD560D242@nominum.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: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 17:48:24 -0000

On Jun 7, 2013, at 8:44 AM, Prashanth Patil (praspati) <praspati@cisco.com> wrote:
> This draft proposes a mechanism to extend DHCPv6 such that a DHCPv6 Relay
> Agent can dynamically influence priority of DNS servers provided to a
> host, so that a host can use an optimal DNS server for resolution.

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.

If you really want the relay to be the source of knowledge about DNS, why not return DNS servers via a relay-supplied options option?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email