nanog mailing list archives

Re: IPv6 Confusion

From: Kevin Loch <kloch () kl net>
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 16:11:40 -0500

Leo Bicknell wrote:


It wouldn't be so bad if we could just turn it off.  Indeed, in
part you can.  On a static LAN there is no need for RA's.  Static
IP the box, static default route, done and done.


VRRPv6 however is relevant to static environments and also needs to
(optionally) work with RA turned off.

- Kevin

Current thread:

Re: IPv6 Confusion, (continued)
- - - 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)
    - Re: IPv6 Confusion Leo Bicknell (Feb 18)
    - Re: IPv6 Confusion Nathan Ward (Feb 18)
    - RE: IPv6 Confusion (back to technical conversation) TJ (Feb 19)
    - Re: IPv6 Confusion Aria Stewart (Feb 18)
    - Re: IPv6 Confusion Kevin Loch (Feb 18)
    - Re: IPv6 Confusion Leo Bicknell (Feb 18)
    - RE: IPv6 Confusion Tony Hain (Feb 18)
    - Re: IPv6 Confusion Adrian Chadd (Feb 18)
    - Re: IPv6 Confusion Joel Jaeggli (Feb 18)
    - Re: IPv6 Confusion Leo Bicknell (Feb 18)
    - Re: IPv6 Confusion John Schnizlein (Feb 18)
    - RE: IPv6 Confusion Tony Hain (Feb 18)
    - Re: IPv6 Confusion Leo Bicknell (Feb 18)
    - Re: IPv6 Confusion Joel Jaeggli (Feb 18)
    - Re: IPv6 Confusion Marshall Eubanks (Feb 18)

(Thread continues...)