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

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).

- 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