{"action":"closed","issue":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/sbyx/odhcp6c/issues/21","labels_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/sbyx/odhcp6c/issues/21/labels{/name}","comments_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/sbyx/odhcp6c/issues/21/comments","events_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/sbyx/odhcp6c/issues/21/events","html_url":"https://github.com/sbyx/odhcp6c/issues/21","id":38365438,"number":21,"title":"Don't limit the RDNSS lifetime to the default router lifetime?","user":{"login":"NeoRaider","id":419139,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/419139?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/NeoRaider","html_url":"https://github.com/NeoRaider","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/NeoRaider/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/NeoRaider/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/NeoRaider/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/NeoRaider/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/NeoRaider/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/NeoRaider/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/NeoRaider/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/NeoRaider/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/NeoRaider/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"labels":[],"state":"closed","locked":false,"assignee":null,"milestone":null,"comments":1,"created_at":"2014-07-22T03:11:51Z","updated_at":"2015-02-09T14:19:49Z","closed_at":"2015-02-09T14:19:49Z","body":"We recently hit the problem that it is not possible to specify a RDNSS record in a router advertisement when AdvDefaultLifetime is 0, as the RDNSS lifetime is bounded by the default router lifetime.\r\n\r\nI'm aware that RFC6106 explicitly mandates this behaviour, but I don't think it makes any sense (why would a RA even contain a RDNSS record with a higher lifetime that its AdvDefaultLifetime if it's always shortened anyways?), and it makes it impossible to announce a DNS server without also announcing a default route (even when the DNS server address might be in one of the prefixes that is announced by the same RA and thus reachable without a default route).\r\n\r\nI've been looking for other discussions about this topic; so far I've found the (unfortunately expired) RFC draft http://ietfreport.isoc.org/idref/draft-gont-6man-slaac-dns-config-issues/ which mentions the same issue in Appendix A, coming to the same conclusion that the default router lifetime shouldn't affect the RDNSS lifetime."}}