v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)]

David W. Hankins David_Hankins at isc.org
Fri Feb 6 00:01:15 UTC 2009

On Thu, Feb 05, 2009 at 05:12:19PM -0600, Jack Bates wrote:
> Operationally, this has been met from my experience. In fact, all of these 
> items are handled with stateless DHCPv6 in coordination with SLAAC. 
> Stateful DHCPv6 seems to be limited with some vendors, but unless they plan 
> to do proxy-nd, I'm not sure they'll gain much except for end system 
> compatibility.

SLAAC fails in the end because you cannot predict what address the
client will choose.

So it fails in scenarios where enforcing network policy is important.

The point of the excercise is that DHCPv4 and DHCPv6 are both
supersets of network management needs.  RA is a vast subset.  Herein
lies the rub; you have to implement both anyway because a client can
not predict what network(s) it is going to be used in.

Nobody wins.

David W. Hankins	"If you don't do it right the first time,
Software Engineer		     you'll just have to do it again."
Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.		-- Jack T. Hankins
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20090205/cce0091b/attachment.sig>

More information about the NANOG mailing list