well, its not without issues. the actual motivation was not that dhcp is the suxxors, but to promote a model where the assigned prefix was free and highly dynamic.
the goal being to support a model where one could support multiple prefixes to handle the common case of multiple internet connections. more importantly to allow providers to shuffle the address space around without having to coordinate with the end organization. this was perceived to be necessary to prevent the v6 address space from accruing segmentation.
It's funny the "handle the common case of multiple internet connections" just doesn't work at all with ipv6 yet works much better under IPv4 NAT. With IPv6 each machine gets it's own routing table due to having two addresses which means I can't failover on the router when an ISP goes down. Machine will keep trying to use the ISP that is having 100% packet loss. I can't prioritize sending traffic out of one ISP because I'd need to configure it on each machine due to them having their own routing table. With IPv4 the router can handle those rules since its doing NAT for all machines in the network so it gets to choose.
Was DHCP so bad? It carries information important to using such a device anyway.
well, its not without issues. the actual motivation was not that dhcp is the suxxors, but to promote a model where the assigned prefix was free and highly dynamic.
the goal being to support a model where one could support multiple prefixes to handle the common case of multiple internet connections. more importantly to allow providers to shuffle the address space around without having to coordinate with the end organization. this was perceived to be necessary to prevent the v6 address space from accruing segmentation.
It's funny the "handle the common case of multiple internet connections" just doesn't work at all with ipv6 yet works much better under IPv4 NAT. With IPv6 each machine gets it's own routing table due to having two addresses which means I can't failover on the router when an ISP goes down. Machine will keep trying to use the ISP that is having 100% packet loss. I can't prioritize sending traffic out of one ISP because I'd need to configure it on each machine due to them having their own routing table. With IPv4 the router can handle those rules since its doing NAT for all machines in the network so it gets to choose.
Well that was a failed idea which has since been abandoned by anyone trying to remain half sane while deploying IPv6.
+1, the majority of corporate networks I have seen used DHCPv6 or similar anyway
The same way you do it now. The router announces a prefix, and devices negotiate unique addresses.
Keep in mind that SLAAC isn't. Modern IPv6 stacks use privacy addresses, so they still need to run the address collision detection.
There's also a proposal to have SLAAC with longer prefixes, because otherwise you need to use DHCP-PD if you want to have subnetting in IPv6.
You don't, and that's fine.