Home page logo
/

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

Re: IPv6 RA vs DHCPv6 - The chosen one?
From: TJ <trejrco () gmail com>
Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2011 09:52:42 -0500

I  think perhaps you are confusing "what must be supported by
implementations" (and ignoring the text describing the requirements) as
stated in 6434, with operational usage.

For example - SLAAC must be supported by the implementations, but an
environment isn't required to use it.

/TJ
On Dec 24, 2011 7:34 PM, "Masataka Ohta" <mohta () necom830 hpcl titech ac jp>
wrote:

Joel jaeggli wrote:

First of all, ND use is optional and, if ND is used, RA
must be used.

It means that, if RA is not used, ND can't be used.

Finding and maintaining the l2 address for a device on a subnet where RA
is not used is a pretty common activity so I'm not sure how your would
conclude that. 2461/4861/5942 certainly don't preclude that.

RFC6434 has contradictory statements:

  Neighbor Discovery SHOULD be supported.

and

  Hosts MUST support IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration as
  defined in [RFC4862].

and a reasonable interpretation is SLAAC MUST be supported if
ND is supported.

Or, we shouldn't expect IPv6 specifications reasonable,
which means reasonable operation is impossible.

                                               Masataka Ohta




  By Date           By Thread  

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