Hemant Singh (shemant) writes: > Thanks, James. I agree with Fred then that a node can try DHCPv6. But > now how does the node get a prefix length? As you are saying, some > manual or static configuration can be used. I certainly don't like the > host to assume any prefix length in this scenario. Since I am not a fan > of any manual configuration, it does make sense, only for such a case of > absence of an RA, that DHCPv6 provides prefix length. Since DHCPv6 > doesn't know if the network's router will issue RA's or not, then DHCPv6 > has to provide prefix length all the time.
My view on it is that such a network is just plain broken. V6 seems intentionally designed to assume that networks have routers, because routers are the _authoritative_ source of prefixes (they have to route them). Thus, it's a case I test for, and one I make sure "works," but I assume that it's useless. In my own implementation, you end up with a /128 for that interface. If you have a default route, everything will go there (via the link-locals), and you'll get a pile of redirects for the local hosts. If you don't, then you're just sunk. Enjoy the address, because it's all you've got. ;-} > Then I am for what Iljitsch is saying. If a host see a discrepancy in > prefix lengths from RA and DHCPv6, then host has to decide based on a > union of information. "Union" doesn't make much sense to me. That just provides a needless opportunity for error, and consequent bizarre and hard-to-diagnose behavior out of subsets of hosts on a network that get the wrong data. -- James Carlson, Solaris Networking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677 -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
