IPv6 RA vs DHCPv6 - The chosen one?
Mohacsi Janos
mohacsi at niif.hu
Fri Dec 23 21:22:09 UTC 2011
On Fri, 23 Dec 2011, Tomas Podermanski wrote:
>
>
> It sounds good, but according to RFC 6434 ( IPv6 Node Requirements) SLAAC is required, but DHCPv6 is only optional. So any
> manufacturer of operating systems or devices do not have to support DHCPv6.
You might propose updating RFC 6434
>
> Administrators are deliberately providing conflicting information?
>
>
> Not administrators, but attackers then could have more ways for harmful activity.
That is why you are administrator - closely monitor your network.
>
> Some operating system do the SLAAC processing in user space. What is the problem.
>
>
> As I wrote. Troubleshooting is more difficult.
Both can difficult to troubleshhoot
>
>
> - DHCPv6 is currently tied with SLAAC (M,O flags), what means that
> a DHCPv6 client have to wait until some RA message arrives to start DHCPv6
> discovery. That unnecessary prolongs whole autoconfiguration process.
>
>
> I think it is matter of implementation.
>
>
> Because DHCPv6 is depended on a information provided by SLAAC (RA messages) and DHCPv6 client have to wait. I hope that this dependency
> will disappear when the route option is added into DHCPv6. Nice thread on this topic is on
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dhcwg/current/msg12183.html.
In my opinion client can ask address via DHPv6 without paying
attention to RA messages.
>
>
> Agree, can be another advantage. But in fact it seems that networks with thousand devices will rather prefer dhcpv6 instead.
As other already mentioned: SLAAC for less controlled, more resource
concerned environment. DHCPv6 for more tightly controlled ones.
Best Regards,
Janos Mohacsi
More information about the NANOG
mailing list