Re: [dhcwg] Call for review: draft-ietf-mif-dns-server-selection-04.txt

[Danny Mayer <[e-mail]>]

On 10/17/2011 3:21 AM, [e-mail] wrote:
> I need to update the draft quite soon, so I think I'll go for this approach
> if no objections:
> 
>> 0                   1                   2                   3
>>  0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
>> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>> |     CODE      |     Len       | Len of domains in oct |Res|prf|
>> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>> |     Primary DNS-recursive-name-server (IPv4 address)          |
>> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>> |     Secondary DNS-recursive-name-server (IPv4 address)        |
>> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>> |     Domains and networks  .....
> 
> The Option 6 (Domain Name Server Option)  of RFC1533 allows 1 or more domain
> name server addresses, but for this option, for sake of simplicity, two
> should suffice?
> 
> Maybe a question then would be, if there needs to be two IPv6 addresses for
> DNS servers in the case of DHCPv6 option, or whether just single address is
> enough there (and then have multiple option instances if multiple servers
> need to be configured).

You need to support both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses here. This has nothing
whatsoever to do with DHCPv6.

Danny