9 Feb
2009
9 Feb
'09
11:35 p.m.
On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 9:47 PM, TJ <trejrco@gmail.com> wrote:
Why would anyone NOT want that?? what replaces that option in current RA deployments?
One nit - I like to differentiate between the presence of RAs (which should be every user where IPv6 is present) and the use of SLAAC (RA + prefix).
Sure, but... RA is necessitated by the initial decision to use it and NOT support something akin to the bootp/dhcp sequence that v4 has. This could, it seems to me, be done... but since RA is there, it's not BAD to use it for prefix/default-route/ip-address it's just not anywhere near complete.
Right now - Cheat off of IPv4's config. (Lack of DHCPv6 client-side support, and lack of DNS v6 transport (WinXP), necessitate this)
agreed. -Chris