[dhcwg] Re: IPv6 Host Configuration of Recursive DNS Server

Thanks for your good comments.

I agree with you at your two points.
Especially, number 2 is the opinion of your co-author, Suresh.
He will speak about your opinion.

Paul

>----- Original Message ----- 
>From: "Christian Huitema" <huitema@windows.microsoft.com>
>To: "Jaehoon Paul Jeong" <paul@etri.re.kr>; <dnsop@lists.uoregon.edu>
>Sent: Monday, June 07, 2004 1:28 PM
>Subject: RE: IPv6 Host Configuration of Recursive DNS Server
>
>Two points:
>
>1) In the disadvantage of DHCPv6 section, you ought to mention that
>there is a ensure that the DHCP server always returns an up-to-date
>value for the address of the preferred recursive DNS server. In large
>networks, this is not trivial: the notion of which server is closest
>depends on routing configuration and on server status, all of which are
>dynamic. In contrast, the anycast approach guarantees that the request
>will reach the closest server.
>
>2) In the unmanaged case, you wrongly assume that case C is "like case
>A". In fact, it is more like case B: if a gateway provides IPv6
>connectivity by managing tunnels, then it is also supposed to provide
>access to a recursive DNS server.
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jaehoon Paul Jeong
>> Sent: Sunday, June 06, 2004 8:57 PM
>> To: dnsop@lists.uoregon.edu
>> Cc: V6OPS WG; DHC WG; IPv6 DNS Configuration; IPv6 WG
>> Subject: Re: IPv6 Host Configuration of Recursive DNS Server
>> 
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> For 1 week, there have been no comments on our IPv6 DNS Configuraion.
>>
>>http://www.adhoc.6ants.net/~paul/publications/ietf-internet-draft/draft-ietf-dnsop-ipv6-dns-configuration-00.txt
>> 
>> Does it mean that there is no problem about this draft and it is ok to
>> request WGLC? :-)
>> 
>> Paul