Static vs SLAAC - Static expected to be preferred?

[Eric Vyncke (evyncke)]

OTOH, if you move to another network, then your static prefix can be wrong and SLAAC should be preferred :-)

SLAAC also provides for the GW address.

BWT I agree that for servers & other 'static hosts', static configuration is easier (DNS & ACL), replicable (changing NIC/HW), and more secure

-éric

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ipv6-ops-bounces+evyncke=cisco.com at lists.cluenet.de [mailto:ipv6-ops-
> bounces+evyncke=cisco.com at lists.cluenet.de] On Behalf Of sthaug at nethelp.no
> Sent: mercredi 27 avril 2011 20:20
> To: danno at internet2.edu
> Cc: nanog at 85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org; ipv6-
> ops at lists.cluenet.de
> Subject: Re: Static vs SLAAC - Static expected to be preferred?
> 
> > > I disagree with that, as when I specifically choose to go to the effort
> > > of overriding an automated configuration mechanism with a static one,
> > > then I intend for and expect the static configuration to be used in
> > > preference to the automated configuration.
> >
> > I agree.  RHEL5 appears to prefer a SLAAC address over a static for
> outbound
> > connections, which was definitely a surprise to me.  I remember thinking
> > "why would I want *that*?"
> 
> Fully agreed here too. If I have configured a static IPv6 address I
> expect it to be used in preference to a SLAAC address.
> 
> Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug at nethelp.no