Re: [v6ops] Implementation Status of PREF64

[Lorenzo Colitti <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 3:57 AM Owen DeLong <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Let's see if we get enough consensus to work on an RFC that says that all
> general-purpose DHCPv6 clients are entitled to receive N addresses; that
> any network that does not provide that number of addresses is in violation
> of the RFC; and that any client disabling the IPv4 stack if it does not get
> at least N addresses is in full compliance with all IETF specifications
> including RFC 8415.
>
>
> No. It’s not IETF’s place to tell network operators what rules they can
> and cannot apply to addressing on their own networks.
>

Ok, so remove that text and just say: all general-purpose DHCPv6 clients
are entitled to receive N addresses, and that any client that does not
enable IPv6 if it does not get at least N addresses is in compliance with
IETF specifications.

If this is not acceptable, then why not? It looks like you're making a
point of principle here: network operators should be able to set policies
on how many IPv6 addresses are handed out, but hosts should not be able to
set policies on how many IPv6 addresses they accept. Why the asymmetry?

Further, making the IPv4 stack contingent on the number of addresses you
> get in IPv6 is just plain silly. The two are unrelated.
>

Sorry. that was a typo. As you say, IPv4 has nothing to do with this. What
I meant to say was, "disabling the IPv6 stack".