Re: [v6ops] Stateful SLAAC (draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host)

[Ole Troan <[e-mail]>]

Fernando,

>> I would leave this up to the operators to decide.
> 
> We are the ones trying to make SLAAC stateful, contributing to IPv6
> automatic configuration complexity, and apparent lack of coherence with
> respect to which protocol supports both, and why we e.g. disregard the
> work of other WGs (e.g. dhc).
> 
> If you want to *partially* duplicate functionality in another protocol,
> please provide a rationale, or don't.

repeating something enough times doesn't make it true.

>> They are designing
>> their network and know their requirements best.
> 
> Exactly: nobody specified the requirements, or said why DHCPv6-PD
> doesn't fullfill them.

this is for public WIFI. hosts are unchanged. DHCPv6 PD is a non-starter deployment wise.

>> There are many factors the weigh into why operators make certain
>> decisions.  There are circumstances were DHCPv6-PD would be quite
>> valid, and others, as described in the draft, where the methods
>> described are desirable.  I don't think there is any one way to build
>> a network (I am yet to have built two that look exactly the same given
>> different input requirements).
> 
> You still have not answered my question.

with regards to complexity. from a ND/SLAAC perspective this is a lot simpler. not more complex. don't make things up.
no address resolution, no ND cache, no need to rewrite L2 multicast to unicast and maintain state in WLCs/APs... I could go on.

I think it is time to shelf this discussion now.

Ole