IPv6 Deployment for the LAN
rps at maine.edu
Wed Oct 21 15:08:10 CDT 2009
I respectfully disagree. In my opinion there is no future for IPv6
that doesn't involve DHCPv6. DHCPv6 is part of the design of IPv6 as
is clear by the existence of M, O, and A flags in RA.
Without DHCPv6, SLAAC has no way to provide DNS (or other)
configuration information, the fact that IPv6 was designed in a way
where SLAAC could be used for addressing and DHCPv6 for "other"
configuration is an example of how DHCPv6 is an integral component of
SLAAC was designed to make IPv6 work out of the box for ad-hoc
networks (link local scope for example). It's increasingly clear that
the designers never intended for SLAAC to "replace" DHCPv6 or that
DHCPv6 wasn't a necessary part of IPv6, especially once you deploy it
in an enterprise environment.
What we've seen is a community of early adopters who are so eager to
deploy IPv6 that they're willing to make compromises that most would
I think we need to get into the mindset that any implementation of
IPv6 that doesn't include a DHCPv6 client is as incomplete as one that
doesn't support ICMPv6.
Support from vendors will eventually fall into place. If more of the
so-called advocates of IPv6 would stop talking about how DHCPv6 isn't
necessary it would likely happen more quickly.
Both SLAAC and DHCPv6 have their roles to fill; both are required.
As for the use of the term SLAAC... it's usage is pretty widespread.
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 3:42 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum
<iljitsch at muada.com> wrote:
> On 18 okt 2009, at 5:51, Karl Auer wrote:
>> Do the advertisements "right", advise sysadmins that hosts should not do
> Doesn't it tell you something that you're fighting this hard to avoid hosts
> from doing what comes naturally?
> It occurs to me that I haven't met anyone who uses the term "SLAAC" who uses
> IPv6 in a way that I would consider normal. (Or at all.)
+1 (207) 561-3526
Communications and Network Services
University of Maine System
More information about the NANOG