[dhcwg] Re: Renumbering DNS with stateless DHCPv6 - bug?

[Masataka Ohta <[e-mail]>]

Tim Chown;

I think that it is silently assumed that DHCPv6-lite is configured
of DNS server addresses without relaying requests to others.

That is, reconfiguration upon renumbering is necessary.

Or, DHCPv6-lite may be (pre)configured with well known addresses,
as I suggested at the last meeting.

But, let's assume relaying is performed, which is a likely scenario
on "stateful" cases, anyway.

> One option for passing the new DNS options from the DHCPv6 Light server
> to the client is a multicast Reconfigure message.    That would work 
> if the DHCPv6 Light server is on link, but if relays are used and there
> is no multicast routing on site, this seems to be a gap (and a case for the 
> RA method - though of course with RA method you still need to reconfigure 
> the router for the new RA...)

W.r.t. inter-link multicast, what multicast protocols is intended
to be used by people in DHC WG?

If it is CBT, PIM-SM or SSM, what happens if CORE, RP or SS crashes
or is renumbered?

Is a well known unicast address is assigned to a primary and
a back-up CORE/RP/SS, which means ANYCAST.

Is DVMRP assumed, instead?

Or, will we wait until yet another multicast protocol is
standardized, hoping that it will solve all the problems?

Assuming that some multicast protocol solves all the
problems, another question is on multicast address.

Is it a well known multicast address? If so, is there any
configuration necessary at a site (or something like that)
border router? If so, what happens if a customer want to relay
DHCP request to ISP's DHCP server? What happens the border
router is wrongly configured?

						Masataka Ohta

PS

It seems to me that relying on multicast does not solve but merely
refer the problem, which is better solved at the point (protocol)
where it is observed.




_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg