North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical RE: SLAAC(autoconfig) vs DHCPv6
>-----Original Message----- >From: Dale W. Carder [mailto:[email protected]] >Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 4:24 PM >To: [email protected] >Cc: [email protected] >Subject: Re: SLAAC(autoconfig) vs DHCPv6 > > >Hey Scott, > >On Aug 18, 2008, at 2:33 PM, Scott Weeks wrote: >> From: "TJ" <[email protected]> >> >> As a general rule, most clients are following the "If we gave them >> static >> IPv4 addresses we will give them static IPv6 addresses" >> (infrastructure, servers, etc). The whole SLAAC(autoconfig) vs DHCPv6 >> is a separate (albeit >> related) conversation ... >> ---------------------------------------------------- >> >> I'm still an IPv6 wussie and would like to learn more before moving >> forward, so would anyone care to share info on experiences with this >> decision? > >Here's some pro's and con's to both > >SLAAC: >- widely implemented in host v6 stacks that have shipped >- widely implemented on v6 routers >- really, really, really broken: it didn't support handing out > any DNS info until RFC 5006, thus SLAAC still requires human > intervention on a client to make "teh v6 interwebs" work. It > will probably be a painful wait until 5006 gets more widely > implemented on hosts (if ever, for some) & routers. Or rely on IPv4 to do the DNS part. I call this "cheating", but do not mean to include the negative connotations that come with that word :). >- probably "faster" than dhcpv6 w/ tuning timers. Could be > better for mobile thingys. >- supports RFC 3041 "security by obscurity" extensions. > >DHCPv6 >- doesn't ship w/ some OS's And some vendors have publicly stated that they would never support DHCPv6. While I may not fully believe them (never is a long time), that is atleast an indication not to expect it "soon". >- new (danger code), not all features implemented >- router support for dhcpv6 relay very limited >- advanced things like prefix delegation don't really seem to > have been ironed out. > >In case you weren't confused enough between the two, they are not mutually >exclusive. You can run both SLAAC and DHCPv6 at the same time on the same >L2. Indeed, Stateless DHCPv6 is exactly that. I should have mentioned that by now - sorry! > >Links for (2) dhcpv6 implementations: >http://klub.com.pl/dhcpv6/ >http://www.isc.org/index.pl?/sw/dhcp/dhcp4_0.php > >Cheers, >Dale /TJ
|