4 ms·

I wouldn't be surprised if this turns out to be a MIT-environment-specific issue. E.g. Juniper support wasn't aware of it because they assumed no one would try

by jauer 12y ago

I wouldn't be surprised if this turns out to be a MIT-environment-specific issue. E.g. Juniper support wasn't aware of it because they assumed no one would try to use stateless configuration in what would generally be a managed environment using dhcpv6.

ay 12y ago
Yes and no. Quite a few large environments use SLAAC and they work just fine (though I work for cisco so a bias is quite possible ;-). But there's certainly something specific to MIT's setup that makes it melt down in such a spectacular fashion with v6. "Forwarding loops" (preexisting?) from the blog raise some suspicion. The local environment frequently has a huge impact - and for the most extreme/"obvious" cases it took me to recreate the setup in the lab and show folks how it works fine with their config and traffic to make them believe that it was not just stupidly broken - because in their environment they could reproduce the bug every time!