Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, Jan 05, 2009 at 02:38:17PM +0000, David Freedman wrote:
Even when you get it, it is only implemented for link-local addresses
so you have to use RA or static routes :(
Unfortunate, indeed. Do you know whether there is work in progress to
get it fixed/improved to handle "global" router IP addresses?
While it might not follow the IETF's vision of "how things should be",
we prefer to configure our servers' default route towards well-known
router addresses (<subnet>::1), and have them ignore RAs...
There is significant difference of opinion in the IETF about the value
and future of RA in IPv6, as I found out recently when I tried to figure
out how IPv6 DHCP was supposed to work (answer: the spec is broken)
This thread (if you have an afternoon free) and surrounding threads are
worth reading:
http://marc.info/?l=ipng&m=122391355810549&w=2
As far as I could tell:
* IPv6 and the RA mechanism were spec'ed back when DHCPv4 was not
widely used, and IPX autoconfig was the model they were aiming for
* Virtually no work has been done in the field since then, so the
hard-learnt lessons of the last decade in IPv4 are simply not there in IPv6
* There are a lot of architecture astronauts in the IETF (IPSec for ND
- whose idea was that?)
* The stateful-address/stateful-other bits in the RA are junk.
The posts by David Hankins of the ISC agree with my personal position,
including this one:
http://marc.info/?l=ipng&m=122406652232186&w=2
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected]
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
