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

Christopher Morrow morrowc.lists at gmail.com
Mon Feb 9 22:35:53 CST 2009


On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 9:47 PM, TJ <trejrco at gmail.com> wrote:
>>Why would anyone NOT want that?? what replaces that option in current RA
>>deployments?
>
> One nit - I like to differentiate between the presence of RAs (which should
> be every user where IPv6 is present) and the use of SLAAC (RA + prefix).
>

Sure, but... RA is necessitated by the initial decision to use it and
NOT support something akin to the bootp/dhcp sequence that v4 has.
This could, it seems to me, be done... but since RA is there, it's not
BAD to use it for prefix/default-route/ip-address it's just not
anywhere near complete.

>
> Right now - Cheat off of IPv4's config.
> (Lack of DHCPv6 client-side support, and lack of DNS v6 transport (WinXP),
> necessitate this)

agreed.

-Chris




More information about the NANOG mailing list