>>>>> On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 20:40:41 +0300 (EEST),
>>>>> Pekka Savola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> 7. Section 3.1.2 (Disadvantages of the RA option)
>>
>> I think this document should include another disadvantage of the RA
>> option: we need to configure the RDNSS addresses at least at one
>> router on every link where this information needs to be configured
>> by this mechanism.
>>
>> If there is a hidden assumption that the router can be
>> autoconfigured with the RDNSS addresses by DHCPv6, see comment 5
>> above. Also, if we take this approach, one of the advantages of
>> the RA option may plummet: address renumbering case, since DHCPv6
>> may not be able to update the address quickly.
> I personally don't think having a router which doesn't have any DNS
> servers configured is a very feasible scenario. All the routers I
> can quickly think of have a configured DNS server.
I simply wanted to point out that configuration overhead at each
router can be disadvantage of the RA option approach, but it seems
it's also related to your further question:
> But I think what you're saying in the second paragraph is slightly
> different. I.e., today's low-end router/NAT boxes have DNS servers,
> but those are configured using DHCPv4. How would DNS servers be
> configured on such boxes when they support v6? This is probably a
> good question.
And, regardless of my original intention, I agree this is a good
question to consider. Not sure if this particular draft should
address this point though.
JINMEI, Tatuya
Communication Platform Lab.
Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
.
dnsop resources:_____________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop.html
mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop/index.html
