nanog mailing list archives
Re: IPV6 planning
From: Mark Tinka <mark.tinka () seacom mu>
Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2016 23:46:59 +0200
On 5/Mar/16 23:19, Laurent Dumont wrote:
Hiya, We are currently considering deploying IPv6 for a Lan event in April. We are assigned a /48 which we then split into smaller subnets for each player vlan. That said, what remains to be decided is how we are going to assign the IPv6. Basically, it seems that are two ways, one SLAAC where the endpoints uses RA to generate it's own IP and DHCPv6 which is basically DHCP but for IPv6. Large events like Dreamhack have used SLAAC and the feedback has been mostly positive. Can anyone comment regarding past experiences with IPv6 gotchas and things that you don't really expect when running dual-stack on a large-ish network?
SLAAC is the way you want to do, as DHCPv6 does not give you a default gateway. If you want IPv6 DNS resolvers, DHCPv6 is a good option, which means a hybrid of DHCPv6 and SLAAC is reasonable. Mark.
Current thread:
- IPV6 planning Laurent Dumont (Mar 05)
- Re: IPV6 planning Mark Tinka (Mar 05)
- Re: IPV6 planning Valdis . Kletnieks (Mar 05)
- Re: IPV6 planning Baldur Norddahl (Mar 05)
- Re: IPV6 planning Hugo Slabbert (Mar 05)
- Re: IPV6 planning Valdis . Kletnieks (Mar 05)
- Re: IPV6 planning Owen DeLong (Mar 07)
- Re: IPV6 planning Mark Tinka (Mar 05)
- Re: IPV6 planning Karl Auer (Mar 05)
- Re: IPV6 planning Saku Ytti (Mar 05)
- Re: IPV6 planning Karl Auer (Mar 05)
- Re: IPV6 planning Saku Ytti (Mar 06)
- Re: IPV6 planning Tore Anderson (Mar 06)
- Re: IPV6 planning Karl Auer (Mar 06)
- Re: IPV6 planning Saku Ytti (Mar 05)