[141716] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: The stupidity of trying to "fix" DHCPv6
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jima)
Fri Jun 10 13:56:53 2011
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2011 12:54:17 -0500
From: Jima <nanog@jima.tk>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <51851769-D812-4EEE-84A0-F463B7E852AB@delong.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 06/10/2011 12:32 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> I think it's a fine solution as far as it goes and a good part of a complete solution. However,
> documenting that a host which sees no RA should attempt DHCPv6 would also be a good thing, IMHO. As it currently stands, some hosts which are DHCPv6 capable will not attempt to query DHCP until they receive an RA with the M bit set.
If we go down this path, how long before we hear screaming about rogue
DHCPv6 servers giving v4-only networks a false v6 path? (At least that
could be nullified by adding actual v6 support and an RA without the M bit.)
Jima
