Re: SLAAC vs DHCPv6 (II)

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

Fernando Gont <[e-mail]> wrote:
    >> But it does violate the recommendation if you use it to enforce how
    >> many addresses the host can use. The text is:
    >> 
    >> Due to the drawbacks imposed by requiring explicit requests for
    >> address space (seeSection 4
    >> <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7934#section-4>), it is RECOMMENDED
    >> that the network give the host the ability to use new addresses
    >> without requiring explicit requests.  This can be achieved either by
    >> allowing the host to form new addresses autonomously (e.g., via SLAAC)
    >> or by providing the host with a dedicated /64 prefix.  The prefix MAY
    >> be provided using DHCPv6 PD, SLAAC with per-device VLANs, or any other
    >> means.
    >> 
    >> 
    >> If the network is able to deny a registration, then it's not a
    >> registration, it's a request.

    > The network always wins. Folks could run SAVI, and enforce one addrees
    > per node, even with SLAAC. Yes, you're address wouldn't be rejected
    > .. it just wouldn't work. The outcome is the same.

It would be impossible to debug, so the user turns off IPv6, and we all lose.


-- 
Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-