IETF Logo Mail Archive

[dhcwg] Option 119 (Domain Search Option) and Option 15 (Domain Name Option)

VithalPrasad Gaitonde <gvithal@gmail.com> Tue, 30 November 2010 07:06 UTC

Return-Path: <gvithal@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D65983A6C67 for <dhcwg@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 23:06:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Upjf5DswbpAI for <dhcwg@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 23:06:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ww0-f44.google.com (mail-ww0-f44.google.com [74.125.82.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4C293A6C58 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 23:06:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: by wwa36 with SMTP id 36so5586250wwa.13 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 23:07:39 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:date:message-id :subject:from:to:content-type; bh=+1w1kdqWJqmh2W5FAP6u57MBiZ97nkSs+//uM09P9yU=; b=nHGsS/i6z0tMpdvBE6zzyGKnmbpwWN3Md7a93oEtE2DMUrLTurC4915xicgvAcJtfP lR66B/ONsiYP2nOV7OAAkU9vEkLYBCmDjH/5Hfv8Xvzmg783JzDCdqoEsqlPP5dM9351 AK0bIt5abHVK+nl08Pqut1mN0Zgee3Bdh5PSY=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; b=uaizdKSSO56mvMriCPoIYhvxrdhmIElZ54X5RRP3AYmGQMVxTay9MbfiAJImfwbj2u hu8K57yFV65CW2nT6Osu3Vdk1fmcVlcWGn6pLfPhze1yvfaPhAfcsJ57TXO3bCg2Z3Ma Df391k3HKmDocA5mg34f15cz4Tx+s0ZlsYFZw=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.216.255.199 with SMTP id j49mr5684397wes.110.1291100858139; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 23:07:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.216.82.16 with HTTP; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 23:07:38 -0800 (PST)
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 12:37:38 +0530
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=yqk3gizbGWkOqvfcKNnDya4ORD7DNpcnZ6ca5@mail.gmail.com>
From: VithalPrasad Gaitonde <gvithal@gmail.com>
To: dhcwg@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="20cf301e2d8704c2cb04963fd84f"
Subject: [dhcwg] Option 119 (Domain Search Option) and Option 15 (Domain Name Option)
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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, 30 Nov 2010 07:06:31 -0000

Hi,

Option 119 (RFC 3397) and Option 15 (RFC 2132) provide DNS domain suffixes
to a DHCP client - with option 119 providing the ability to configure a list
instead of a single domain name (option 15).

Is there any specification on the client behaviour when both option 15 and
option 119 are provided in the server response:
1. Should option 119 value override option 15  value
2. Should option 15 value override option 119 value
3. Should the set of values be concatenated with preference for option 119
i.e. name resolution is first attempted with the values in option 119
followed by value in option 15.
4. Should the set of values be concatenated with preference for option 15
i.e. name resolution is first attempted with the value in option 15 followed
by values in option 119.
RFC 3396 seems to be silent on this aspect.

Thanks,
Prasad

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email