for those who seem not to have followed the ops discussions on 1918 links, this how operators think
From: [email protected] Subject: Re: Link addressing (was: Re: A Plea for Architectural & Specification Stability with IPv6) To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 09:46:26 +0100 (CET) > The question I've wondered a bit about is what is the common > operational or implementation practice when configuring manual > addresses on routers. > > For people who configure static addresses on router interfaces, do > they actively switch SLAAC off for either individual prefixes, or > for the whole interface? Answering only for myself, obviously: - We use static /124 addresses on our router-router links, which means we're pretty darn sure that SLAAC won't be working for anything other than the link local address. We may switch to /127. - Additionally, Juniper routers need explicit configuration to turn on RA. We definitely don't configure this on our router-router links. - Additionally, we're planning to explicitly turn off SLAAC on Cisco routers for our router-router links. > Alternatively, if SLAAC is left enabled for the LL prefix, then > there is likely to now be two LLs on the interface. Static > configuration of an LL address would usually indicate preference for > its use for all LL traffic over the SLAAC LL address, which may be a > problem, because IIRC, RFC6724 doesn't place any preference for > static addresses over SLAAC addresses. The static IPv6 addresses that we configure on router-router links are *not* link local. Thus we don't have two link local addresses on the interfaces. Steinar Haug, AS 2116 _______________________________________________ OPSEC mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec
