SLAAC(autoconfig) vs DHCPv6
Dale W. Carder
dwcarder at wisc.edu
Mon Aug 18 15:23:58 CDT 2008
On Aug 18, 2008, at 2:33 PM, Scott Weeks wrote:
> From: "TJ" <trejrco at gmail.com>
> As a general rule, most clients are following the "If we gave them
> IPv4 addresses we will give them static IPv6
> addresses" (infrastructure,
> servers, etc). The whole SLAAC(autoconfig) vs DHCPv6 is a separate
> related) conversation ...
> I'm still an IPv6 wussie and would like to learn more before moving
> forward, so would anyone care to share info on experiences with this
Here's some pro's and con's to both
- widely implemented in host v6 stacks that have shipped
- widely implemented on v6 routers
- really, really, really broken: it didn't support handing out
any DNS info until RFC 5006, thus SLAAC still requires human
intervention on a client to make "teh v6 interwebs" work. It
will probably be a painful wait until 5006 gets more widely
implemented on hosts (if ever, for some) & routers.
- probably "faster" than dhcpv6 w/ tuning timers. Could be
better for mobile thingys.
- supports RFC 3041 "security by obscurity" extensions.
- doesn't ship w/ some OS's
- new (danger code), not all features implemented
- router support for dhcpv6 relay very limited
- advanced things like prefix delegation don't really seem to
have been ironed out.
In case you weren't confused enough between the two, they are not
mutually exclusive. You can run both SLAAC and DHCPv6 at the same
time on the same L2.
Links for (2) dhcpv6 implementations:
More information about the NANOG