3 ms·
> Assume you rely entirely on SLAAC, because that's the preferred way, or so they said. Who's "they"? I think RA for addressing/DNS and stateless DHCPv6 for e
by yrro 3y ago
> Assume you rely entirely on SLAAC, because that's the preferred way, or so they said.
Who's "they"?
I think RA for addressing/DNS and stateless DHCPv6 for everything else is the way to go these days.
- magicalhippo 3y agoRight, and how is that less complex than IPv4? Now you got two separate protocols to manage something you do in one place in IPv4.
- JohnFen 3y agoRA makes me extremely nervous. I am never quite confident that I haven't made a simple mistake that opens me up to rogue RA advertisements. But SLAAC makes me equally nervous. If/when I shift my home network to IPv6, I'll probably just go with static routing to avoid both of them.
- yrro 3y agoIt's the switches job to drop traffic from rogue routers/DHCP servers. Look up RA Guard and DHCPv6 guard. You also need to worry about rogue DHCP(v4) servers too. DHCP Snooping takes care of that. If you're that paranoid then you also need to worry about IPv4 ARP and IPv6 ND attacks. Again, managed switches are required to drop unauthorized ARP and ND replies.
- JohnFen 3y ago> Look up RA Guard and DHCPv6 guard. Yes, thank you. I'm aware of these features. I never claimed that my nervousness is rational. But it's very real. This is complex stuff, and since I haven't been working with IPv6 for decades, I can't shake the fear that I've made a configuration error and am not aware that I've made a configuration error.