[LAC-TF] Autoconfiguration (EUI-64)

Diogo Montagner diogo.montagner at gmail.com
Fri Aug 19 23:39:08 BRT 2011

Hi Fernando,

appreciate your comments.

Looks like the reasons points to the operational benefits only. There
is no technical reasons to choose one instead of another.

I am looking into a VPNv6 environment where it will have manual
provision (CLI) and automatic provision (provisioning tool).

For now, the decision is to go for manual (static) configuration
instead of EUI64. But I am looking around to see how others are doing.


./diogo -montagner

On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 10:25 AM, Fernando Gont <fgont at si6networks.com> wrote:
> Hi, Diogo,
> On 08/19/2011 10:18 PM, Diogo Montagner wrote:
>> Hello,
>> I am looking for reasons whether we should use autoconfiguration
>> rather than static configuration for IPv6 interfaces.
> It requires less effort than static configuration. For most systems, it
> is enabled by default, and you do not need to edit any configuration
> files. Static ("manual", actually) configuration does require you to
> edit config files, which for large deployments could be problematic.
> OTOH, manual configuration may lead to addresses that are easier to
> remember -- as opposed to SLAAC-configured addresses, which embedd the
> MAC address in the IPv6 address.
> Finally, routers do not configure their addresses automatically, and
> hence you need to perform manual configuration of their interfaces.
>> Could you please let me know if you are using EUI-64 and in which
>> cases do you prefer to deploy EUI-64 instead of static configuration
>> ?
> Please see above. Note that with DHCPv6 you can get most of the benefits
> of manual configuration, without having to edit config files at each
> node. However, some systems do not support DHCPv6. (and you still need
> manual configuration for routers).
> Thanks,
> --
> Fernando Gont
> SI6 Networks
> e-mail: fgont at si6networks.com
> web: http://www.si6networks.com

More information about the LACTF mailing list