Subject: [Pppext] Is there a IPv6 Configuration Protocol Options for DNS IP address?

From: Mykim <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 14:42:06 +0900

Hello all,

Is there a IPv6 Configuration Protocol Options in
IPv6CP?
If there is no IPv6 Configuration Protocol Option then I'd like
to know how to get IPv6 DNS address when negotiate PPP.
(I found
draft document which is filed as "PPP IPV6 Control Protocol Extensions for
DNS Server Addresses". But, it was expired at December 2004 and
not published as RFC.)

I expect your prompt reply.

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

---

From: John Bray <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 13:07:24 -0400

At 01:42 AM 5/10/2004, Mykim wrote:
>Hello all,
>
>Is there a IPv6 Configuration Protocol Options in IPv6CP?
>If there is no IPv6 Configuration Protocol Option then I'd like to know 
>how to get IPv6 DNS address when negotiate PPP.

Use DHCP.

>(I found draft document which is filed as "PPP IPV6 Control Protocol 
>Extensions for DNS Server Addresses". But, it was expired at December 2004 
>and not published as RFC.)

It was rejected by the working group.  The consensus was that it duplicated 
the existing capability already provided by DHCP.

John

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

---

From: "Glen Zorn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 12:05:59 -0700

[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]> writes:

>> If there is no IPv6 Configuration Protocol Option then I'd like to
>> know how to get IPv6 DNS address when negotiate PPP.
> 
> Use DHCP.
> 
>> Extensions for DNS Server Addresses". But, it was expired at
>> December 2004 and not published as RFC.)
> 
> It was rejected by the working group.  The consensus was that it
> duplicated the existing capability already provided by DHCP.

One might add that the IETF is rapidly duplicating the capability
already provided by ISO/OSI: that of valuing intellectual purity over
running networks; if this continues, one might also expect a similar
slide into irrelevance and the twilight obscurity of textbook footnotes.
OF course, CDMA2000 vendors won't throw away backward compatibility with
their installed base just because the IETF says "use DHCP", nor does
this edict change the reasons that they didn't implement DHCP in the
first place.  I expect that what will happen is that 3GPP2 will simply
define a new vendor-specific option and use PPP.  The WG will have
washed its hands, to the effect that an even larger percentage of PPP
implementations will be non-standard.

>> [email-masked] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pppext

Hope this helps,

~gwz

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither..." 
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1759

"It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless
they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets." 
-- Voltaire

---

From: Bernard Aboba <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 12:45:17 -0700 (PDT)

> first place.

The reasons that DHCP was not implemented for IPv4 do not apply to IPv6.
It is widely expected that "stateless DHCPv6" servers will be implemented
on NASen, so that there is no need to deploy DHCPv6 servers in the
network.

---

From: "Glen Zorn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 16:18:01 -0700

> The reasons that DHCP was not implemented for IPv4 do not apply to

I honestly don't know what reason(s) 3GPP2 had for not using DHCP
w/IPv4.  However, I'm pretty sure that whatever those reasons were, they
can't be changed by proclamation. ;-)

> It is widely expected that "stateless DHCPv6" servers will be
> implemented on NASen, so that there is no need to deploy DHCPv6
> servers in the network.   

Hope this helps,

~gwz