On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 05:57:14PM +0100, Marco Sommani wrote: > On 28/dic/2013, at 17:36, Hannes Frederic Sowa <han...@stressinduktion.org> > wrote: > > > On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 03:41:58PM +0100, "Roger Jørgensen" wrote: > >> It should be possible to have a network running DHCP without any RA, if > >> someone wants to do that. As far as I know, and you need RAs in todays > >> world because DHCPv6 can not give out defaultroute. It break the > >> standard if it (DHCPv6) does... > > > > DHCPv6 does not provide any on-link information. So you would have to > > include those, too. IIRC dibbler dhcp implementation has their own option > > to specificy prefix length and on-link information so I assume you can > > already use it standalone without RA. But I don't see any benefit in > > doing so. > > > > (dibbler already supports sending gateway and route informations in > > dhcpv6). > > > Dibbler sends them, but no DHCPv6 client except dibbler's can use them. > Non-standard solutions are useless in this case.
Sure, I just wanted to maybe give a starting point if OP wants to bring this ot the IETF 6man's table.