Re: IPv6 Confusion

[Nathan Ward <nanog () daork net>]

On 19/02/2009, at 9:42 AM, sthaug () nethelp no 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
> > > hilarity
> > > ensues.
> >
> >
> > They are not mutually exclusive, DHCPv6 *requires* RA.
>
> In your previous Nanog message you said:
>
> > DHCPv6 can operate without RA now.
>
> Please make up your mind.


You are right, sorry for any confusion, I will clarify my comments.

DHCPv6 can operate without RA, but you cannot get default route  
information right now. I believe there is a draft to add this option  
though.

In most networks this is not practical, as many hosts with a DHCPv6  
stack will send DHCPv6 requests only when RA messages tell them to us  
a DHCPv6 server.

The DHCPv6 protocol does not require RA, however practical  
implementation of DHCPv6 for address assignment does.

Better? :-)

--
Nathan Ward