Home page logo
/

nanog logo nanog 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 
any
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 
this dependency
will disappear when the route option is added into DHCPv6. Nice thread on this topic is on
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dhcwg/current/msg12183.html.

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 
instead.

As other already mentioned: SLAAC for less controlled, more resource concerned environment. DHCPv6 for more tightly controlled ones.

Best Regards,
        Janos Mohacsi

  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]
AlienVault