[Snac] Re: Why is an AIL prefix with only the "P" flag set suitable?

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

Ted Lemon <[e-mail]> wrote:
    > Consider the bad home router case. In this case, the home router is in violation of RFC7084:

    > WAA-1:   The IPv6 CE router MUST support Stateless Address
    > Autoconfiguration (SLAAC) [RFC4862].

Support != enable!
{I think that I can explicitely turn off SLAAC on OpenWRT, relying on DHCPv6-only}

    > So I think we don't need to address this case, because non-conformant
    > home routers should be out of scope. E.g., a home router MUST NOT

I think that word non-conformant is incorrect, but I agree that it probably
should be out-of-scope.

...
    > It's of course possible that the operator of a home router might turn
    > off SLAAC, but in that case you have a managed network. Which brings us
    > to the second case—a misconfigured or deliberately configured managed
    > network.

Agreed: This might have been done by an incompetent ISP.
So in this case, we need enough text for an end-user to hit them over the head.

    > If it's deliberately configured this way, then I think it makes sense
    > to follow the operator's intention. Our goal here is not to make every
    > network SNAC-capable, but rather to make sure that when SNAC should
    > work, it does work. In this case, the operator has clearly decided that
    > SNAC shouldn't work for hosts that don't do IA_PA (or possibly
    > IA_NA). I think it's fine for us to not solve this problem.

+1
The STUB network could well work via PD (or ULA+NAT64 even), but not interact
with the AIL.  We should document this limitation clearly then.
_It's working as intended_

--
Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide