[ipv6hackers] "Stick to limited IPv6 deployments, businesses warned"

Fernando Gont fgont at si6networks.com
Mon Sep 10 01:35:59 CEST 2012

On 09/08/2012 04:49 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> I say implement it all and let each environment pick the solution that works
> best for them.

FWIW, I agree with your pov

BTW, my read of the religious wars in this area is that:

* Some guys say do not include more info in SLAAC -- if you need
additional info such as DNS, you should be doing DHCPv6.

* Other guys (anti-DHCPv6?) say "DHCPv6 should not be able to convey all
the necessary information.. e.g., routs should be handled with RAs
rather than DHCPv6".

The result of both factions is that, at the end of the day, you need to
support both protocols even for simple auto-configuration stuff.

My take is that both autconf mechanisms should be able to handle at
least basic configuration stuff (addresses, DNS, and routes), and then
it should be up to the admin which one to use.

Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont at si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492

More information about the Ipv6hackers mailing list