re: [dhcwg] dhcpv6 'zone suffix' option

Let me conclude this discussion first.

1. location of the FQDN option:
  Location1: IA_* option
     Bernie's preference. I also agree. This will reduce the confusion, and...very clear.
  Location2: message option
     It isn't clear as to which addresses (or prefixes) it applies to.
  Location3: IA_ADDR option
     This will complicates the client and server processing code.

  Bernie: could you explain whether FQDN can be using in IA_PD option? You mentioned this in the last mail, but I cannot find the explicit explanation in your draft. 

2. the method to transfer DNS zone suffix:
  Method1: Adding a flag in FQDN option
     This will complicate the FQDN option, and may make the option messy. 
  Method2: using a seperate option. 
      Simple and clear,  it also benefits the case for putting the FQDN in the IA_* option. It seems we reach this consense after the discussion.

For my draft <draft-yan-dhc-dhcpv6-opt-dnszone-01.txt>, the idea behind is rather simple. It's arised when I try to identify a solution to perform DNS auto-registration in IPv6 access network.  and I believe is can also be used in other cases, e.g. DNS update in stateless configuration. Please give me comments, to move this work forward.

-Renxiang Yan

-----原始邮件-----
发件人: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org]代表
Bernie Volz
发送时间: 2004年11月11日 2:40
收件人: 'Ted Lemon'; dhcwg@ietf.org
主题: RE: [dhcwg] dhcpv6 'zone suffix' option

Fine by me. I'll double check but I don't believe that I mentioned stateful
in the current draft.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org] 
> On Behalf Of Ted Lemon
> Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2004 1:21 PM
> To: <dhcwg@ietf.org> <dhcwg@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: [dhcwg] dhcpv6 'zone suffix' option
> 
> 
> On Nov 10, 2004, at 10:13 AM, Bernie Volz wrote:
> > By putting it in the IA_* options, we're restricting it to stateful
> > (PD or
> > NA) but I don't think that's an issue (especially if we 
> don't use it to
> > communicate the zone name).
> 
> I would encourage you not to put any language in the draft that 
> explicitly refers to stateful versus not stateful.   I think it's 
> likely that we will want to support dynamic DNS updates with the 
> Information Request message using the FQDN option.   In this 
> case, the 
> client would have to send an IA option, in order to identify 
> it for the 
> purposes of doing the DNS update.   So if you don't explicitly say 
> anything about stateful vs. non-stateful, we don't need to 
> update your 
> draft when we write a draft explaining how to do updates with 
> stateless 
> DHCPv6.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> dhcwg@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
> 

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg