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

On 01/08/13 5:04 PM, "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com> wrote:

>There were a lot of issues raised at the joint Sunset4/DHC session Wed
>afternoon. It will be interesting to see what the authors of the draft
>will do to address these. (That's not to say the other issues should not
>be raised.)
>
>We will wait to see if the authors continue this work (by addressing
>issues in a new draft).

Yes, we plan to work on a revision that makes the draft more generic and
also possibly address issues raised in sunset4 and on the mailing list.

-Prashanth

>
>- Bernie (from iPhone)
>
>On Aug 1, 2013, at 11:34 AM, "Mikael Abrahamsson" <swmike@swm.pp.se>
>wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 7 Jun 2013, Prashanth Patil (praspati) wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi all,
>>> 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.
>> 
>> I feel this proposal have two problems in my opinion:
>> 
>> I don't like "flags" that means the server responds differently with
>>the same field. This means there must be server-side logic to handle the
>>different cases. I believe other solutions which work with a static
>>server-side configuration file without "if/then/else"-statements are
>>preferred.
>> 
>> I don't like the chattyness of the proposed solution, where if a client
>>goes between different states of dualstacked-ness, it needs to talk DHCP
>>every time.
>> 
>> As I see it, it also doesn't address an additional problem, where if
>>the client has gotten DNS resolvers from both DHCPv4 and DHCPv6, there
>>currently is no sure way to know what the client will use (I know for a
>>fact that different android phones from different vendors behave
>>differently). If we're going to enhance this, it would be beneficial if
>>this case would also be solved.
>> 
>> So I propose a change of the solution where the client would initially
>>ask the following:
>> 
>> What resolver should I use if I am single stacked IPv6.
>> What resolver should I use if I am dual stacked, and also please tell
>>me if there is a preference if this resolver is better, same or worse
>>than any other resolver I might have gotten provisioned any other
>>dynamic way (DHCPv4 comes off my mind).
>> 
>> I am not knowledable about DHCP to know what the best way to actually
>>implement this, but from an operational point of view, I would really
>>like to see the above goals be achieved if we're enhancing the DHCPv6
>>client and host stack behaviour anyway.
>> 
>> -- 
>> Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se
>> _______________________________________________
>> dhcwg mailing list
>> dhcwg@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
>_______________________________________________
>dhcwg mailing list
>dhcwg@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg