[148118] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 RA vs DHCPv6 - The chosen one?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Tue Jan 3 18:24:12 2012
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <4EF67019.1000309@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2012 15:19:08 -0800
To: Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Dec 24, 2011, at 4:36 PM, Masataka Ohta 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].
>
These do not conflict.
> and a reasonable interpretation is SLAAC MUST be supported if
> ND is supported.
>
The implementation of IPv6 in a host MUST support SLAAC. That does not mean
that the host must use that support in any particular environment.
Owen
