[188055] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPV6 planning
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Mon Mar 7 18:43:56 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <f29836b7-3c60-452e-bd8d-6289f39e2a1f@seacom.mu>
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2016 15:42:43 -0800
To: Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
> On Mar 5, 2016, at 13:46 , Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 5/Mar/16 23:19, Laurent Dumont wrote:
>
>> Hiya,
>>
>> We are currently considering deploying IPv6 for a Lan event in April.
>> We are assigned a /48 which we then split into smaller subnets for
>> each player vlan. That said, what remains to be decided is how we are
>> going to assign the IPv6. Basically, it seems that are two ways, one
>> SLAAC where the endpoints uses RA to generate it's own IP and DHCPv6
>> which is basically DHCP but for IPv6.
>>
>> Large events like Dreamhack have used SLAAC and the feedback has been
>> mostly positive. Can anyone comment regarding past experiences with
>> IPv6 gotchas and things that you don't really expect when running
>> dual-stack on a large-ish network?
>
> SLAAC is the way you want to do, as DHCPv6 does not give you a default
> gateway.
Though you will inherently get one from the RA packet that tells you to
ask DHCPv6 for information anyway.
> If you want IPv6 DNS resolvers, DHCPv6 is a good option, which means a
> hybrid of DHCPv6 and SLAAC is reasonable.
Or you can use RFC6106 in your RAs on SLAAC.
Owen
