Re: draft-bourbaki-6man-classless-ipv6-00

[Simon Hobson <[e-mail]>]

Lorenzo Colitti <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Sat, Jun 3, 2017 at 7:15 PM, Simon Hobson <[e-mail]> wrote:
> BUT, I cannot see the logic behind your earlier comment that DHCP makes NAT inevitable for IPv6.
> 
> The answers are in RFC 7934, 

I think you'll need to point them out then


Lorenzo Colitti <[e-mail]> wrote:

> That means it should be able to form new addresses without asking the network, or it should get enough from the network that it never needs to asks again.

Ah, now I see where you are coming from - and I don't agree with you.

I don't want to come across as being adversarial here, but one thing I have noticed from your various posts is that you appear to have a quite entrenched "SLAAC solves the problems I work with, there shouldn't be any other solutions even if others have different problems/priorities" approach to things.

So for example, here you are adamant that a device should not have to "ask the network" for more addresses. What about networks where there are other priorities, what if the operator of a network requires to track addresses/address usage for whatever reasons ?

The answer to that cannot be "then the network operator is wrong". I can assure you that there are networks around where devices just turning up and assigning their own addresses is not allowed, and never will be allowed (all I'll say is that the military have a different view of the privacy/security tradeoff). In some cases, there is a LEGAL REQUIREMENT to track devices in this manner - such as public WiFi operators. I assume you'll consider that bad and not to be supported, but in the real world that is the case whether we like it or not.
There may be other ways around it involving routers tracking the MAC-address mappings and so on, but this seems quite a lot more work than having a centralised management system that deals with admitting new devices onto the network, assigning addresses to them, and monitoring their activity.