>> > I suppose you can individually configure every host to get itself >> > temporary addresses from RA announcements. This isn't usually a >> > good default configuration, but OS implementation already seems to >> > be inconsistent on the default configuration here. So we're back to >> > the IPv4 dark ages where you have to walk around to all the devices >> > to effect changes in policy (beyond prefix field contents). >> >> >> I'm not sure, but you seem to be implying that you need to configure >> hosts to tell them to use RA or DHCPv6 to get addresses. My apologies >> if this is not your intention. >> >> RA messages are always going to be sent by routers and received by >> hosts, even if DHCPv6 is being used for address assignment. > >This does not seem to be generally true: > >- For the routers I am most familiar with (Juniper M/MX), you need to >explicitly turn on router advertisement to make the router perform this. >I.e. it is perfectly possible to have an interface with an IPv6 address >which does *not* send RAs.
Yes, vendors differ ... for Ciso/IOS - broadcast capable, multi-access interfaces (a la Ethernet) will automatically send RAs ones a /64 IPv6 address is configured. Or once you explicitly tell it to advertise one. >- For the operating system I am most familiar with (FreeBSD), RAs are >*not* accepted by default if the interface in question is configured with a >static IPv6 address. I don't believe that is the general behavior, and specifically - for Win* a static being configured does not prevent autoconfiguration. And this is the correct behavior - to allow for cases where multiple prefixes are correct/expected, and only one is static. >Both of these choices seem perfectly reasonable to me. I slightly disagree on the latter; autoconfiguration in the presence of RAs (including a (or several) prefix options) should be the default. ((... and now begins (continues, really) the pseudo-religious debate between the autoconfiguration people and the DHCPv6 people ...)) /TJ
