On 02/23/2016 10:45 AM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
Besides, what if say, there's different address information available
via RA vs DHCPv6? --the text I cited above suggests that you accept the
union, but you suggest that you accept only the info provided by the
RAs.
The draft doesn't say that the host shouldn't accept information
provided by DHCPv6. It says that the host shouldn't request such
information if it has all it needs from something else.
Say you only receive a ULA/64 in the RA. Is that "all you needed"?
(particularly if there was a GUA available via DHCPv6)
Again, I don't disagree (per se) with the proposal to do SLAAC rather
than DHCPv6 . But, I just think the behavior being suggested differs
from what we currently have -- hence the suggested "Update".
The behaviour that we currently have is due to what implementations
chose to do, not to what standards track RFCs say.
... what implementations chose to do, within ambiguity in the specs. See
draft-ietf-v6ops-dhcpv6-slaac-problem-06.
Thanks,
--
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont(_at_)si6networks(_dot_)com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492