[147855] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 RA vs DHCPv6 - The chosen one?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu)
Fri Dec 23 15:38:17 2011
To: Tomas Podermanski <tpoder@cis.vutbr.cz>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 23 Dec 2011 21:19:25 +0100."
<4EF4E24D.4020107@cis.vutbr.cz>
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2011 15:36:46 -0500
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
--==_Exmh_1324672606_3579P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Fri, 23 Dec 2011 21:19:25 +0100, Tomas Podermanski said:
> It sounds good, but according to RFC 6434 ( IPv6 Node Requirements)
> SLAAC is required, but DHCPv6 is only optional. So any manufacturer of
> operating systems or devices do not have to support DHCPv6.
Strictly speaking, they don't *have* to support IPv6 at all. And until
very recently, there was very little market incentive for them to do so.
You want DHCPv6 support? It happens in one of two ways:
1) Deploy it yourself using open-source pieces.
2) You tell the vendor "You ship DHCPv6 or we'll find another solution that has it".
It's been that way since the big players were Bay and Proteon, not Cisco and Juniper. ;)
--==_Exmh_1324672606_3579P
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001
iD8DBQFO9OZecC3lWbTT17ARAj70AKD4/w6IDAyl+7YuRdQmVQhcG5SJGwCffAfz
NcaWOQXjQAjg9u3l3G5guTg=
=Jlzu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==_Exmh_1324672606_3579P--
