> To summarize, the current document > - retains SLAAC as a MUST > - lists DHC (for address config) as a MAY > - makes DHC for other configuration a SHOULD. > - lists rfc5006bis (DNS RA Config) as a SHOULD
I would prefer if nodes were required (MUST) to support one or the other mechanism for DNS config. Given SLAAC is a must, it would probably make the most sense to make rfc5006 the must. My goal is predictability. From a service provider help desk perspective, if I'm trying to troubleshoot a customer who can't get their Internet connection working, and I discover that they can ping an IPv4 address (and somehow also test they can ping an IPv6 address), but not a FQDN, then my next steps are much easier if I can predict how DNS is acquired. This is not an uncommon scenario in IPv4. Having to figure out if the device supports DNS by RA or DHCPv6, and has one or the other or both enabled, adds unnecessary steps and complexity to troubleshooting. The routers the service provider ships would also have to be default configured to provide the identical DNS info through both mechanisms. All of this extra effort could be avoided (and better user experience provided) if one of the mechanisms were required. Barbara -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
