mailing list archives
Re: IPv6 RA vs DHCPv6 - The chosen one?
From: Mohacsi Janos <mohacsi () niif hu>
Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2011 22:22:09 +0100 (CET)
On Fri, 23 Dec 2011, Tomas Podermanski wrote:
It sounds good, but according to RFC 6434 ( IPv6 Node Requirements) SLAAC is required, but DHCPv6 is only optional. So
manufacturer of operating systems or devices do not have to support DHCPv6.
You might propose updating RFC 6434
Administrators are deliberately providing conflicting information?
Not administrators, but attackers then could have more ways for harmful activity.
That is why you are administrator - closely monitor your network.
Some operating system do the SLAAC processing in user space. What is the problem.
As I wrote. Troubleshooting is more difficult.
Both can difficult to troubleshhoot
- DHCPv6 is currently tied with SLAAC (M,O flags), what means that
a DHCPv6 client have to wait until some RA message arrives to start DHCPv6
discovery. That unnecessary prolongs whole autoconfiguration process.
I think it is matter of implementation.
Because DHCPv6 is depended on a information provided by SLAAC (RA messages) and DHCPv6 client have to wait. I hope that
will disappear when the route option is added into DHCPv6. Nice thread on this topic is on
In my opinion client can ask address via DHPv6 without paying
attention to RA messages.
Agree, can be another advantage. But in fact it seems that networks with thousand devices will rather prefer dhcpv6
As other already mentioned: SLAAC for less controlled, more resource
concerned environment. DHCPv6 for more tightly controlled ones.
Re: IPv6 RA vs DHCPv6 - The chosen one? Glen Kent (Dec 20)
Re: IPv6 RA vs DHCPv6 - The chosen one? Ray Soucy (Dec 21)
Re: IPv6 RA vs DHCPv6 - The chosen one? Kevin Loch (Dec 22)