nanog mailing list archives
Re: IPv6 Confusion
From: Nathan Ward <nanog () daork net>
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 09:26:30 +1300
On 19/02/2009, at 9:17 AM, Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu wrote:
2) Some end-node box with a IPv6 stack from "Joe's Software Emporium and Bait-n-Tackle" sees an RA packet, and concludes that since RA and DHCPv6 are mutually exclusive, to ignore any DHCPv6 packets it sees, and hilarityensues.
They are not mutually exclusive, DHCPv6 *requires* RA. Or did you mean SLAAC?If you did, I am not sure that they are mutually exclusive - I see no reason for telling hosts a prefix to number out of (SLAAC), and also telling hosts to use DHCPv6. That actually seems like a good solution to a number of problems.
-- Nathan Ward
Current thread:
- Re: IPv6 Confusion, (continued)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Chuck Anderson (Feb 18)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Nathan Ward (Feb 18)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Randy Bush (Feb 18)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Aria Stewart (Feb 18)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Raymond Dijkxhoorn (Feb 18)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Leen Besselink (Feb 18)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Jack Bates (Feb 18)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Randy Bush (Feb 18)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Nathan Ward (Feb 18)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Valdis . Kletnieks (Feb 18)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Nathan Ward (Feb 18)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion sthaug (Feb 18)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Nathan Ward (Feb 18)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Leo Bicknell (Feb 18)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Nathan Ward (Feb 18)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Mikael Abrahamsson (Feb 18)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Leo Bicknell (Feb 18)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Nathan Ward (Feb 18)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Dale W. Carder (Feb 18)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Joel Jaeggli (Feb 18)
- Message not available
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Tim Chown (Feb 19)