Re: SLAAC, Static & DHCPv6 day 1 interoperability issue

[Philip Homburg <[e-mail]>]

>A day 1 issue that has existed with SLAAC and another critical operational
>reason as to why longer prefix should be supported by SLAAC.
>
>Since SLAAC only supports /64 plen due to the fixed 64 bit IID, that issue
>ends up shackling IPv6 from using longer  prefix length when other devices
>using static or DHCPV6 are configured on the same subnet.
>
>The major issue that exists is that their maybe devices that do not support
>DHCPV6 or static and have to use SLAAC and you have a subnet configured on
>the router with longer then /64 prefix length like a /96 for example.
>
>So now with those devices running SLAAC you end up with interoperability
>issue with remaining devices on the subnet that support longer prefix
>length via static or DHCPV6.

I don't understand the problem you are describing. If a router marks a 
/96 prefix as onlink then SLAAC-only hosts on the same subnet can communicate
with that prefix but obviously cannot generate a SLAAC address.

There could be implementation errors. But then those should be pointed out
and fixed.

I assume you realize that the onlink property is separate from
autonomous address configuration. The onlink property does not have an
implicit 64-bit boundary.