4 ms·

I'm pretty sure that you can use both. RAs even have bits to indicate if one is supposed to autoconfigure, [0] hit up a DHCPv6 server for some or all configurat

I'm pretty sure that you can use both. RAs even have bits to indicate if one is supposed to autoconfigure, [0] hit up a DHCPv6 server for some or all configuration, [1] or both. radvd refers to them as AdvAutonomous and AdvOtherConfigFlag/AdvManagedFlag, respectively. [0] <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc4861#section-4.6.2 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc4861#section-4.6.2> [1] <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc4861#section-4.2 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc4861#section-4.2>

retatop 7mo ago
This is exactly what I do. Almost everything has a nice DHCPv6 address so that I can actually remember the ULA + the suffix, but then for the two devices on my network that don't do DHCPv6 they get a SLAAC. One oddity though is that it means most devices on my network have both a SLAAC and a DHCP-provided one, since I wasn't able to be able to get it to prioritize a DHCP. Combine that with them having both ULA addresses and public addresses and some stuff on my network have way more addresses than you'd expect
jcalvinowens 7mo ago
You can use both, but I've never found a good reason to at home. The DHCPv6 option for specifying an NTP server might be a good reason to... but even Linux machines ignored it when I tried. Maybe in five years :)
- simoncion 7mo ago
  > The DHCPv6 option for specifying an NTP server might be a good reason to... but even Linux machines ignored it when I tried. Odd. option dhcp6.name-servers <ADDR>; option dhcp6.sntp-servers <ADDR>; work to get my Linux systems an IPv6 DNS and NTP server (respectively) when I'm using ISC DHCPd and 'dhcpcd'. Perhaps your DHCPd and/or your DHCPc were either misconfigured or badly broken? It is a little weird to be using the 'sntp' option, but on the systems I have access to, the address passed back to the client is treated exactly the same as the DHCPv4 NTP information. ~Thirteen years ago, one of the ISC DHCP bigwigs seemed to be of the opinion that the DHCPv6 NTP Server Option was "badly broken" [0]. Perhaps that's why the 'sntp' option is used instead. [0] <https://lists.isc.org/pipermail/dhcp-users/2013-June/016882.html https://lists.isc.org/pipermail/dhcp-users/2013-June/016882....>

retatop 7mo ago

This is exactly what I do. Almost everything has a nice DHCPv6 address so that I can actually remember the ULA + the suffix, but then for the two devices on my network that don't do DHCPv6 they get a SLAAC. One oddity though is that it means most devices on my network have both a SLAAC and a DHCP-provided one, since I wasn't able to be able to get it to prioritize a DHCP. Combine that with them having both ULA addresses and public addresses and some stuff on my network have way more addresses than you'd expect

jcalvinowens 7mo ago

You can use both, but I've never found a good reason to at home. The DHCPv6 option for specifying an NTP server might be a good reason to... but even Linux machines ignored it when I tried. Maybe in five years :)

simoncion 7mo ago
> The DHCPv6 option for specifying an NTP server might be a good reason to... but even Linux machines ignored it when I tried. Odd. option dhcp6.name-servers <ADDR>; option dhcp6.sntp-servers <ADDR>; work to get my Linux systems an IPv6 DNS and NTP server (respectively) when I'm using ISC DHCPd and 'dhcpcd'. Perhaps your DHCPd and/or your DHCPc were either misconfigured or badly broken? It is a little weird to be using the 'sntp' option, but on the systems I have access to, the address passed back to the client is treated exactly the same as the DHCPv4 NTP information. ~Thirteen years ago, one of the ISC DHCP bigwigs seemed to be of the opinion that the DHCPv6 NTP Server Option was "badly broken" [0]. Perhaps that's why the 'sntp' option is used instead. [0] <https://lists.isc.org/pipermail/dhcp-users/2013-June/016882.html https://lists.isc.org/pipermail/dhcp-users/2013-June/016882....>