[141836] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: The stupidity of trying to "fix" DHCPv6
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ingo Flaschberger)
Sun Jun 12 11:49:11 2011
Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2011 17:49:04 +0200 (CEST)
From: Ingo Flaschberger <if@xip.at>
To: Leo Bicknell <bicknell@ufp.org>
In-Reply-To: <20110612134501.GA25078@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
>> And networks without RAs are very common. We call those networks "IPv4-only networks".
>
> No, we call those server networks. I've seen lots of IPv6 networks with
> RA's disabled and all static devices on them. Sometimes having hosts
> dynamically get addresses and default routes is a bad thing.
For my future ipv6 server network I tried to go without ra - but ran into
troubles.
I use ucarp from freebsd for the ipv4 servers to have a failover gateway -
but this does not work because of dad.
So I have now a ip for each gateway, still failover via ucarp to bring the
interface up / down and advertise the active default gw via ra.
Kind regards,
Ingo Flaschberger
