Subject: RE: [dhcwg] Revision of DHCPv6 DNS configuration options

From: "Bernie Volz (EUD)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2003 22:04:01 -0600

Ah ... what's in a name?

I too would have preferred the original name for the option - "Domain Name Server".

Perhaps I missed it, but what was the reason for this change?

- Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: Jun Xie [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2003 2:30 PM
To: Ted Lemon
Cc: [email-masked]; Ralph Droms
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Revision of DHCPv6 DNS configuration options

At 11:12 PM 2/28/03 -0600, Ted Lemon wrote:
>>Caching name server is only one special kind of name servers.
>>I don't think the option is limited to specify caching name servers only.
>>I think domain name server is more general and appropriate here.
>
>The purpose of this option is to tell the client where it should send DNS 
>lookups for final resolution.   Not all name servers are configured to do 
>recursive name resolution for nodes with stub resolvers.   Some name 
>servers, for example, only serve the zones for which they are primary or 
>secondary, and refuse requests for recursive lookups.   So it is actually 
>meaningful to make a distinction here.

Nothing prevents a stub resolver from sending further queries to the server
referred by an iterative server, although many implementations don't do it.
In an isolated site, I think the option can also be used to configure name
servers that serve the local zones only, for local DHCP clients. Since
those clients can not go beyond the site, the answers they get from the
servers are final resolution for them. If the option really represents name
servers that can do recursive resolution, this should be clearly specified.
Even in this case, "name server" is still more appropriate than "resolver"
for the name of the option.

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg