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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492