Re: Linux & draft-gont-6man-slaac-dns-config-issues

On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 2:26 PM, Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> wrote:
> To clarify: I mean that we should just strike the text that specifies that
> the maximum duration SHOULD be <= 2x the router advertisement interval. That
> doesn't make sense to me.

+1
I agree that "<= 2x MaxRtrAdvInterval" limitation is way too strict
and we SHOULD fix this.
However I do not like the idea of sanitizing the received values and
limiting them to 10xMaxRtrAdvInterval. It really sounds like a
micromanaging network administrators in how they run their networks.
There might be valid reasons to have RDNSS/DNSSL Lifetime to be close
enough to how often RAs are sent (what if a router is a DNS server
itself? So if a router does down I don't want a client to use it).
BTW it is also a reason I'm concerned about changing the Lifetime
field semantic.

Actually, the wording of Sanitizing section is not accurate. Clients
do not know MaxRtrAdvInterval value as it's something configured on a
router. I assume it should be "the default MaxRtrAdvInterval value of
600 sec"?

e that the router lifetime in the RA will expire while the
> DNS servers have not yet expired, but there might be another route via
> another unexpired router. Nothing else in the RA has such strict
> requirements on lifetimes - for example, RIOs have their own lifetimes, and
> so do PIOs; both can and usually are longer than the RA interval. Why should
> RDNSS be different?
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>

-- 
SY, Jen Linkova aka Furry