DHCPv6/SLAAC Interaction Operational Guidance
draft-liu-v6ops-dhcpv6-slaac-guidance-03
| Document | Type |
Expired Internet-Draft
(individual)
Expired & archived
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Bing Liu , Ron Bonica , Tianle Yang | ||
| Last updated | 2015-04-30 (Latest revision 2014-10-27) | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Expired | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft is available in these formats:
Abstract
The IPv6 Neighbor Discovery (ND) Protocol [RFC4861] specifies an ICMPv6 Router Advertisement (RA) message. The RA message contains three flags that indicate which address autoconfiguration mechanisms are available to on-link hosts. These are the M, O and A flags. The M, O and A flags are all advisory, not prescriptive. In [I-D.ietf-v6ops-dhcpv6-slaac-problem], test results show that in several cases the M, O and A flags elicit divergent host behaviors, which might cause some operational problems. This document aims to provide some operational guidance to eliminate the impact caused by divergent host behaviors as much as possible.
Authors
Bing Liu
Ron Bonica
Tianle Yang
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)