On Nov 21, 2011, at 3:36 PM, Thomas Narten wrote: > Isn't this what DHC already does? I.e., you run DHCP on two > interfaces, and get conflicting information.
I don't know what the antecedent to "this" was intended to be. > The existing DHCP specs are silent on this, and the DHC WG has never > been willing to specify how to handle this case. Right, because it's been our position that this is not a DHCP problem. > The case of getting conflicting DNS configuration information via DHC > seems a realistic scenario to me. It is completely realistic. > How do you propose this get handled? I think the right way to handle this is the way that the MIF working group has proposed: treat each provisioning domain separately. Do not try to merge information you have no basis for assuming is valid across provisioning domains (which is all configuration information). You wouldn't typically send an IP packet with a source address for interface 2 out of interface 2. Why would you query a DNS server out of interface 2 when you learned about it through interface 1? > Are you proposing we solve it for the DHC/RA case, but not for the > DHC/DHC case? I think that having two ways of configuring things is a bad idea, and hence I claim that standardizing the RA DNS server option was a mistake, one which unfortunately can't be undone at this point. I think that if we are going to say that RAs and DHCP servers can both provide some piece of configuration information, then we kind of have to treat them as separate provisioning domains. But we can't really do that, because some information is provided only in RAs at the moment. My main wish is just to not make the mess any worse; secondarily, I'd like to do what we can to make it less bad. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
