The stupidity of trying to "fix" DHCPv6

sthaug at sthaug at
Fri Jun 10 10:10:37 UTC 2011

> >> DHCPv6 does not provide route information because this task is handled
> >> by RA in IPv6.
> > Thankfully this silliness is in the process of being fixed,
> So where do I point out the stupidity of trying to fix this non-brokenness?

Several large operators have said, repeatedly, that they want to use
DHCPv6 without RA. I disagree that this is stupid.

> > - so in future, there will be no requirement for either RA or cartloads of per-interface configuration on routers.
> Good luck with that. Next month, the last major operating system will add support for DHCPv6. Which was published in 2003.
> So now you want to change some more stuff so in 2019 we can finally actually start USING DHCPv6?

We're planning to use DHCPv6 and RA (with no prefixes, only for the
link local next hop). This is more complex than using DHCPv6 alone,
without RA, would be. When and if DHCPv6 without RA is possible, we
certainly plan to turn off RA on our BRAS boxes.

Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug at

More information about the NANOG mailing list