+1 to Karl's emails. Hemant
-----Original Message----- From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Karl Auer Sent: Monday, November 14, 2011 12:05 PM To: IETF IPv6 Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Conflict between RA and DHCP in MIF case On Mon, 2011-11-14 at 14:27 +1100, Mark Andrews wrote: > Anyone depending apon search lists that they did not set already has a > broken configuration. I didn't say people should do these things, just that there are things that *can be* delivered via RA and that *can be* delivered via DHCP, and that *can conflict*. If things do conflict, then something has to decide, on some criterion or other, which to honour (or to honour neither of course). My post was in answer to a question from someone about about how things could conflict. That's all. > Enterprises MAY advertise a search lists when configuring their own > machines. Homes MAY advertise a search lists when configuring their > own machines. Well - yes. And if their DHCP server says one thing and their RAs are saying another, then there should be a sane default for deciding which to use. That's all this is about. Regards, K. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Karl Auer (ka...@biplane.com.au) +61-2-64957160 (h) http://www.biplane.com.au/kauer/ +61-428-957160 (mob) GPG fingerprint: DA41 51B1 1481 16E1 F7E2 B2E9 3007 14ED 5736 F687 Old fingerprint: B386 7819 B227 2961 8301 C5A9 2EBC 754B CD97 0156 -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
