SLAAC(autoconfig) vs DHCPv6

TJ trejrco at gmail.com
Mon Aug 18 15:34:01 CDT 2008


>-----Original Message-----
>From: Scott Weeks [mailto:surfer at mauigateway.com]
>Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 3:34 PM
>To: nanog at nanog.org
>Subject: SLAAC(autoconfig) vs DHCPv6
>
>
>
>---------- trejrco at gmail.com wrote: ------------
>From: "TJ" <trejrco at gmail.com>
>
>As a general rule, most clients are following the "If we gave them static
>IPv4 addresses we will give them static IPv6 addresses" (infrastructure,
>servers, etc).  The whole SLAAC(autoconfig) vs DHCPv6 is a separate (albeit
>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 decision?

Which one?
"If we gave them static IPv4 addresses we will give them static IPv6 addresses"
Or
"SLAAC(autoconfig) vs DHCPv6"

For the first ... at the simplest, it is familiar and comfortable.
In general:
	Servers, Routers, Firewalls, Switches (atleast those with L3 addresses) == static address
	Hosts == dynamic ... either SLAAC or DHCPv6.  Manual Configuration of hosts is a non-starter for most environments.

For the latter ... that gets more involved.
Many (most?) platforms do not support DHCPv6 client functionality.  Ditto on the server side.
OTOH, SLAAC alone cannot currently give you DNS information ... a possible deal-breaker, that.
(Some work under way to change that, or the environment can cheat 0 rely on IPv4 transport for DNS :)  )


>
>scott


HTH!
/TJ





More information about the NANOG mailing list