Re: 6MAN Working group last call: draft-ietf-6man-rdnss-rfc6106bis

[[e-mail]]

Paul,

> I took a look at the draft of https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-v6ops-dhcpv6-slaac-problem-06.txt.
> 
> From Case 4 (all RA flags are set, that is, M=1, A=1, O=1) in A.2.2,
> Fedora 21 and Centos 7 let the DNS of the RAs have higher priority, but
> MAC OS-X lets the DNS of DHCPv6 have higher priority.
> In the current implementations, there is no consistency to handle RDNSS options from RA and DHCPv6.
> 
> Thus, I suggest the following text with the preference for DHCPv6 because
> there is no a stong rationale, but there must be somehow a guidance to handle this case:
> 
> The DNS options from Router Advertisements and DHCP SHOULD be
> stored into the DNS Repository and Resolver Repository so that
> information from DHCP appears there first and therefore takes
> precedence. This document recommends that the DNS information
> from DHCP should have higher priority than that of RA for
> DNS queries to handle the case of the coexistence of RA and DHCP.
> 
> If anyone does not object this text, I will revise the draft with it.

I would prefer this document focused solely on specifying the RA DNS options, and did not stray into more general configuration complexity.

getting information from multiple sources is a more general problem in IPv6, and I don't want us to "solve" (if that's possible) that problem in this document.

"the less you say, the less likely you are to say something wrong". ;-)

Best regards,
Ole