Re: Thoughts about RA en DHCPv6 in /etc/network/interfaces

[chiel <chiel@gmx.net>]

On 12/08/2010 08:51 PM, Jay Ford wrote:
> I agree that
> most things with a static IPv6 address probably don't also want a SLAAC
> address, but if you generalize this very much you'll cause trouble for
> some
> use scenarios. Basically, don't assume that static implies no SLAAC.
>
> RAs have information you want/need, such as the net MTU & the router
> address,
> so don't discard the whole RA. 

So sending RA on the server network should be best practice? I think
that accepting the router address in this scenario still makes you
vulnerable to mis-configured legitimate- and rogue nodes sending RA's,
perhaps this also implies for the MTU.
I believe that static must really mean static. As in, I configure all
network information myself and don't want any influence from outside on
this behaviour.

What about the options "iface eth0 inet6 ra" and "iface eth0 inet6
dhcpv6"? should be nice to have as a default and be disabled altogether
(meaning all options possible) if commented/removed.

Thank you for sharing your view on this.