Re: [dhcwg] RFC3315 DECLINE definition

[Simon Hobson <[e-mail]>]

"Mudric, Dusan (Dusan)" <[e-mail]> wrote:

> -          Assignment of multiple IPV6 addresses, that the client cannot support

I thought it was part of the spec that a client must be capable of being configured with multiple addresses. As a minimum it must support 2 - one link-local, and one globally unique if external connectivity is needed.



"Mudric, Dusan (Dusan)" <[e-mail]> wrote:

> I was just saying the validation is done in the application because DHCPv6 client cannot do it. It is about the network reachability and not about the application. Site-Local (FEC0::/10), for example, cannot be used by any device (RFC 3879: Deprecating Site Local Addresses. The prefix MUST NOT be reassigned for other use except by a future IETF standards action.)

1) How does the application know that allocation of such addresses isn't a deliberate policy decision ?
2) It's an "admin error" anyway and it will either a) be spotted fairly quickly due to the lack of connectivity, b) obviously isn't that important.

And as I said before, there is nothing to stop the admin putting (say) an incorrect router address in DHCPv4 - and I can't say I've seen a lot of clamour for "we must handle this automatically" features.