IPv6 RA vs DHCPv6 - The chosen one?

Masataka Ohta mohta at necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp
Tue Dec 27 22:49:21 UTC 2011

Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu wrote:

>>> And, if RA is obsoleted, which is a point of discussion, there
>>> is no reason to keep so bloated ND only for address resolution.
>> By who?  Sources please.
>> A few people on NANOG complaining about RA is pretty far from deprecation of RA.
> Especially when some of the biggest IPv6 networks out there are still using
> it pretty heavily.

That's not a valid counter argument against people who
found problems in certain environment.

IPv6, as is, might work well under some environment assumed by
IPng/IPv6 WG, a committee. The environment may be large.

However, as the committee made so many wrong assumptions such as:

	All the link layers were similar to PPP, Ethernet or ATM

	ATM was not broadcast capable but multicast capable

	Network configuration was mostly stationary

	Multicast was reliable

	Scale of multicast was not large

	ICMP packet too big won't be filtered

	A site was single homed or, if not, all the global prefixes
	was working

IPv6 does not work well in many environments.

In this case, the following statement in RFC1883:

   If the minimum time for rebooting the node is known (often more than
   6 seconds),

is the wrong assumption which made RA annoying.

						Masataka Ohta

More information about the NANOG mailing list