[112038] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 Confusion
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Nathan Ward)
Wed Feb 18 15:56:59 2009
From: Nathan Ward <nanog@daork.net>
To: nanog list <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <20090218.214205.41670905.sthaug@nethelp.no>
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 09:55:09 +1300
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On 19/02/2009, at 9:42 AM, sthaug@nethelp.no wrote:
>>> 2) Some end-node box with a IPv6 stack from "Joe's Software Emporium
>>> and
>>> Bait-n-Tackle" sees an RA packet, and concludes that since RA and
>>> DHCPv6
>>> are mutually exclusive, to ignore any DHCPv6 packets it sees, and
>>> hilarity
>>> ensues.
>>
>>
>> They are not mutually exclusive, DHCPv6 *requires* RA.
>
> In your previous Nanog message you said:
>
>> DHCPv6 can operate without RA now.
>
> Please make up your mind.
You are right, sorry for any confusion, I will clarify my comments.
DHCPv6 can operate without RA, but you cannot get default route
information right now. I believe there is a draft to add this option
though.
In most networks this is not practical, as many hosts with a DHCPv6
stack will send DHCPv6 requests only when RA messages tell them to us
a DHCPv6 server.
The DHCPv6 protocol does not require RA, however practical
implementation of DHCPv6 for address assignment does.
Better? :-)
--
Nathan Ward
