[111659] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Christopher Morrow)
Mon Feb 9 23:36:00 2009
In-Reply-To: <00e001c98b29$e29538c0$a7bfaa40$@com>
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 23:35:53 -0500
From: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com>
To: TJ <trejrco@gmail.com>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 9:47 PM, TJ <trejrco@gmail.com> wrote:
>>Why would anyone NOT want that?? what replaces that option in current RA
>>deployments?
>
> One nit - I like to differentiate between the presence of RAs (which should
> be every user where IPv6 is present) and the use of SLAAC (RA + prefix).
>
Sure, but... RA is necessitated by the initial decision to use it and
NOT support something akin to the bootp/dhcp sequence that v4 has.
This could, it seems to me, be done... but since RA is there, it's not
BAD to use it for prefix/default-route/ip-address it's just not
anywhere near complete.
>
> Right now - Cheat off of IPv4's config.
> (Lack of DHCPv6 client-side support, and lack of DNS v6 transport (WinXP),
> necessitate this)
agreed.
-Chris
