Hi, Thank you all for the feedbacks. I will perform the editorial once we have settled the terminology. Regarding the use of a DHCP Relay, we could of course make a use case of it, but I believe it would go beyond the simplicity of the targeted architecture and I would rather not consider this as RSOO enabled.
Yours, Daniel On Wed, May 5, 2021 at 3:10 PM Michael Richardson <[email protected]> wrote: > > Ted Lemon <[email protected]> wrote: > > On May 5, 2021, at 11:44 AM, Michael Richardson < > [email protected]> > > wrote: > >> The end user might suffer slightly by having locally served reverse > >> names that are no longer connected: they should obsolete that zone > >> when they realize that their PD hasn't been renewed, until such > time, > >> (if it was a flash renumber), they would be right to think that they > >> legitimately control them. > > > In practice I don’t think this is an issue. The reverse lookup is > > usually triggered by receipt of a message from an IP address, so as > > long as the IP address is still in use internally, the presence of > the > > reverse zone is wanted. When the address changes, the old zone > becomes > > obsolete whether it continues to be served or not. The likelihood of > > the zone being re-allocated to some other network for which the > > original network will then do a reverse lookup is very small, so I > > don’t think there’s any reason to be concerned about this. > > I agree with you completely. > > -- > Michael Richardson <[email protected]> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting ) > Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide > > > > > _______________________________________________ > dhcwg mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg > -- Daniel Migault Ericsson
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
