Re: Node Requirements: Elevating DHCPv6 from MAY to SHOULD

[Mohacsi Janos <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, 31 May 2011, Markus Hanauska wrote:

>
> On 2011-05-30, at 22:27 , Philip Homburg wrote:
>
>> If you are really worried about this, then I guess you can also just assign
>> two prefixes to a single link and use one for SLAAC and the other for DHCPv6.
>
> Of course this is possible, but this also means, that a node not doing 
> DHCPv6 (because it does not support it or because it is disabled on the 
> node), will only get an address of the SLAAC prefix and thus has to go 
> to through the network router to have its packets routed the other one. 
> So even though both nodes are on the same physical network, all traffic 
> has to pass through a router, instead of being exchanged directly 
> between the two nodes. This means a lot of unnecessary load for the this 
> router to route "local traffic".

Why would you do assign different prefixes via SLAAC and DHCPv6?

This is similar to the problem of IPv4 when you configured secondary 
addresses (from different subnet) to an interface.

Best Regards,
 		Janos Mohacsi