On Fri, 23 Dec 2011, Tomas Podermanski wrote:
It sounds good, but according to RFC 6434 ( IPv6 Node Requirements) SLAAC is
required, but DHCPv6 is only optional. So any
manufacturer of operating systems or devices do not have to support DHCPv6.
You might propose updating RFC 6434
Administrators are deliberately providing conflicting information?
Not administrators, but attackers then could have more ways for harmful
activity.
That is why you are administrator - closely monitor your network.
Some operating system do the SLAAC processing in user space. What is the
problem.
As I wrote. Troubleshooting is more difficult.
Both can difficult to troubleshhoot
- DHCPv6 is currently tied with SLAAC (M,O flags), what means that
a DHCPv6 client have to wait until some RA message arrives to
start DHCPv6
discovery. That unnecessary prolongs whole autoconfiguration
process.
I think it is matter of implementation.
Because DHCPv6 is depended on a information provided by SLAAC (RA messages) and
DHCPv6 client have to wait. I hope that this dependency
will disappear when the route option is added into DHCPv6. Nice thread on this
topic is on
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dhcwg/current/msg12183.html.
In my opinion client can ask address via DHPv6 without paying
attention to RA messages.
Agree, can be another advantage. But in fact it seems that networks with
thousand devices will rather prefer dhcpv6 instead.
As other already mentioned: SLAAC for less controlled, more resource
concerned environment. DHCPv6 for more tightly controlled ones.
Best Regards,
Janos Mohacsi
