Static vs SLAAC - Static expected to be preferred?

[Seth Mattinen]

On 4/27/11 6:38 AM, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
> Den 27. april 2011 15:14 skrev Mark Smith
> <nanog at 85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org> følgende:
>> Do you have any comments on your general static address
>> expectations?
> 
> Well… one thing is expectations, another thing is what would be useful.
> 
> In Linux (at least Debian, which I'm used to), it's actually pretty
> hard to get servers not to take RA—thus, using static addresses by
> default would certainly be useful. It sort of feels like the wrong
> knob for the issue, though; I can certainly see situations where I
> would wish that a server contact external hosts over a less “official”
> address, and always preferring static addresses would seem to make
> that impossible.
> 

It's easy to go static in Debian:

iface eth0 inet6 static
    address 2001:0DB8:107:400::a
    netmask 64
    pre-up modprobe ipv6
    pre-up echo 0 > /proc/sys/net/ipv6/conf/$IFACE/autoconf


Or did you mean something else?

~Seth