RA & DHCP problem...

"Roger Jørgensen" roger at jorgensen.no
Sat Dec 28 15:41:58 CET 2013


On Sat, December 28, 2013 15:12, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Dec 2013, "Roger Jørgensen" wrote:
>
>> supply default gateway independing of RAs or no RAs. That is a client
>> should be able to get only in a IPv6 only network _if_ there is no RAs,
>> only DHCP there.
>
> Why? What problem are you solving by changing the current behavior?
<snip>

did you see the start of my mail?
"We all think it's time to address this reoccurring issue and discussion
on RAs and DHCP." This topic shows up every 6months or so, nothing new
is said on the topic, just the same old argument. Well I am for once
tired of see it and want it gone, addressed.



It should be possible to have a network running DHCP without any RA, if
someone wants to do that. As far as I know, and you need RAs in todays
world because DHCPv6 can not give out defaultroute. It break the
standard if it (DHCPv6) does...

see this answer among others on the topic
"There is no provision in DHCPv6 for a def g/w field."
http://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/c5a623e4-2ed1-4c02-a4c9-71e543f58087/ipv6-change-default-gateway-with-dhcpv6




sure we could just try to add it to DHCPv6, how many times have that
been tried and shoot down? This time, what about trying it to the other
way around, make it _possible_ to not depend on RAs but use something
else. The obvious pick is DHCPv6, who know what the future might bring,
someone might make another tool that can get the job done?





-- 
------------------------------
Roger Jorgensen      | - ROJO9-RIPE  - RJ1866P-NORID
roger at jorgensen.no   | - The Future is IPv6
-------------------------------------------------------

A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?




More information about the ipv6-ops mailing list