[147894] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 RA vs DHCPv6 - The chosen one?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (TJ)
Sun Dec 25 09:53:39 2011
In-Reply-To: <4EF67019.1000309@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2011 09:52:42 -0500
From: TJ <trejrco@gmail.com>
To: nanog@nanog.org
Reply-To: trejrco@gmail.com
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
I think perhaps you are confusing "what must be supported by
implementations" (and ignoring the text describing the requirements) as
stated in 6434, with operational usage.
For example - SLAAC must be supported by the implementations, but an
environment isn't required to use it.
/TJ
On Dec 24, 2011 7:34 PM, "Masataka Ohta" <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
wrote:
> Joel jaeggli wrote:
>
> >> First of all, ND use is optional and, if ND is used, RA
> >> must be used.
> >>
> >> It means that, if RA is not used, ND can't be used.
> >
> > Finding and maintaining the l2 address for a device on a subnet where RA
> > is not used is a pretty common activity so I'm not sure how your would
> > conclude that. 2461/4861/5942 certainly don't preclude that.
>
> RFC6434 has contradictory statements:
>
> Neighbor Discovery SHOULD be supported.
>
> and
>
> Hosts MUST support IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration as
> defined in [RFC4862].
>
> and a reasonable interpretation is SLAAC MUST be supported if
> ND is supported.
>
> Or, we shouldn't expect IPv6 specifications reasonable,
> which means reasonable operation is impossible.
>
> Masataka Ohta
>
>
