nanog at daork.net
Wed Feb 18 14:26:30 CST 2009
On 19/02/2009, at 9:17 AM, Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu wrote:
> 2) Some end-node box with a IPv6 stack from "Joe's Software Emporium
> Bait-n-Tackle" sees an RA packet, and concludes that since RA and
> are mutually exclusive, to ignore any DHCPv6 packets it sees, and
They are not mutually exclusive, DHCPv6 *requires* RA.
Or did you mean SLAAC?
If you did, I am not sure that they are mutually exclusive - I see no
reason for telling hosts a prefix to number out of (SLAAC), and also
telling hosts to use DHCPv6. That actually seems like a good solution
to a number of problems.
More information about the NANOG