nanog mailing list archives
RE: v6 & DSL / Cable modems
From: "TJ" <trejrco () gmail com>
Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2009 17:24:08 -0500
I suppose you can individually configure every host to get itself temporary addresses from RA announcements. This isn't usually a good default configuration, but OS implementation already seems to be inconsistent on the default configuration here. So we're back to the IPv4 dark ages where you have to walk around to all the devices to effect changes in policy (beyond prefix field contents).I'm not sure, but you seem to be implying that you need to configure hosts to tell them to use RA or DHCPv6 to get addresses. My apologies if this is not your intention. RA messages are always going to be sent by routers and received by hosts, even if DHCPv6 is being used for address assignment.This does not seem to be generally true: - For the routers I am most familiar with (Juniper M/MX), you need to explicitly turn on router advertisement to make the router perform this. I.e. it is perfectly possible to have an interface with an IPv6 address which does *not* send RAs.
Yes, vendors differ ... for Ciso/IOS - broadcast capable, multi-access interfaces (a la Ethernet) will automatically send RAs ones a /64 IPv6 address is configured. Or once you explicitly tell it to advertise one.
- For the operating system I am most familiar with (FreeBSD), RAs are *not* accepted by default if the interface in question is configured with a static IPv6 address.
I don't believe that is the general behavior, and specifically - for Win* a static being configured does not prevent autoconfiguration. And this is the correct behavior - to allow for cases where multiple prefixes are correct/expected, and only one is static.
Both of these choices seem perfectly reasonable to me.
I slightly disagree on the latter; autoconfiguration in the presence of RAs (including a (or several) prefix options) should be the default. ((... and now begins (continues, really) the pseudo-religious debate between the autoconfiguration people and the DHCPv6 people ...)) /TJ
Current thread:
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)], (continued)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)] Iljitsch van Beijnum (Feb 06)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)] Matthew Kaufman (Feb 06)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems sthaug (Feb 06)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems Jack Bates (Feb 06)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems David W. Hankins (Feb 06)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems Jack Bates (Feb 06)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems David W. Hankins (Feb 06)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems Nathan Ward (Feb 06)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems sthaug (Feb 07)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems Mikael Abrahamsson (Feb 07)
- RE: v6 & DSL / Cable modems TJ (Feb 08)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems David W. Hankins (Feb 07)
- RE: v6 & DSL / Cable modems TJ (Feb 09)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems Owen DeLong (Feb 06)
- RE: v6 & DSL / Cable modems TJ (Feb 07)
- RE: v6 & DSL / Cable modems TJ (Feb 07)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems James R. Cutler (Feb 06)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)] David W. Hankins (Feb 06)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)] Ricky Beam (Feb 05)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)] Iljitsch van Beijnum (Feb 06)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)] Ricky Beam (Feb 09)