Subject: [v6ops] Completeness of DNS Parameter Provisioning in draft-jjmb-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host

From: "Mukom Akong T." <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2016 06:14:53 +0200

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host-01

Section 4 says

[snip]

The architected result of designing the RA as documented above is
   that each UE/subscriber gets its own unique /64 IPv6 prefix for which
   it can use SLAAC or any other method to select its /128 unique
   address.  In addition it will use stateless DHCPv6 to get the IPv6
   address of the DNS server, however it SHOULD NOT use stateful DHCPv6
   to receive a service provider managed IPv6 address.  If the UE/
   subscriber desires to send anything external including other UE/
   subscriber devices (assuming device to device communications is
   enabled and supported), then due to the L-bit set it SHOULD send this
   traffic to the First Hop Provider Router.

[/snip]

Question #1

Any reason for silence about the  possibility of passing DNS parameters
within the RAs as per RFC 6106?

Perhaps the statement

" In addition, it will use stateless DHCPv6 to get the IPv6 address of the
DNS server ..."

may be replaced with

"The UE depending upon its capabilities should get DNS information either
from the RA as per RFC6106 or via stateless DHCPv6"

-- 

Mukom Akong T.

LinkedIn:Mukom <https://www.linkedin.com/in/mukom>  |  twitter:
@perfexcellent

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“When you work, you are the FLUTE through whose lungs the whispering of the
hours turns to MUSIC" - Kahlil Gibran
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------