[afnog] A heads up on a nasty IPv6 bug

[Mukom Akong T.]

On 14 August 2016 at 12:54, Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com>
wrote:

> Particularly if you are doing a DHCPv6-PD and then grabbing a segment of
> the PD to assign to the LAN interface which in turn does RA.  Because if
> the client reconnects and gets a new DHCPv6-PD segment, and the RA then
> changes towards the client, the client ends up with two v6 subnets and two
> gateways until the RA expires,
>


I can understand why it gets a new address. Unsure why it will get a second
gateway considering that both RAs came from the same router thus same link
local address that's a default gateway candidate. Can you shed more light
on what the two different default gateways?



>
>
> The general consensus that I’m seeing elsewhere is that when doing v6 to
> the mass market, static is better and full of far less problems, and that’s
> what we’re switching to now with a provisioning system, so v6 prefix to
> every client will be static.
>


do you mean in lieu of DHCPv6-PD?

With static prefix, then all CPE provision on the client network will also
need to be manually done (or scripted somehow) which limits scalability
right



>
>




-- 

Mukom Akong T.

LinkedIn:Mukom <https://www.linkedin.com/in/mukom>  |  twitter:
@perfexcellent


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“When you work, you are the FLUTE through whose lungs the whispering of the
hours turns to MUSIC" - Kahlil Gibran
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.afnog.org/pipermail/afnog/attachments/20160814/40e02762/attachment-0001.html>