The stupidity of trying to "fix" DHCPv6

Jima nanog at
Fri Jun 10 17:54:17 UTC 2011

On 06/10/2011 12:32 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> I think it's a fine solution as far as it goes and a good part of a complete solution. However,
> documenting that a host which sees no RA should attempt DHCPv6 would also be a good thing, IMHO. As it currently stands, some hosts which are DHCPv6 capable will not attempt to query DHCP until they receive an RA with the M bit set.

  If we go down this path, how long before we hear screaming about rogue 
DHCPv6 servers giving v4-only networks a false v6 path?  (At least that 
could be nullified by adding actual v6 support and an RA without the M bit.)


More information about the NANOG mailing list