Re: [v6ops] Implementation Status of PREF64

[Lorenzo Colitti <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 1:36 PM Owen DeLong <owen=
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Suppose an OS developer ships a DHCPv6 implementation that requires N
> addresses and does not enable the IPv6 stack unless it receives all of
> them. How does that do anything to address statements such as, "my network,
> my rules" that have been made on this thread? Any operator that wants to
> assign only one address per device still cannot use such hosts on their
> network, and can still criticise the implementation for not doing what they
> want.
>
> At least it provides a possible way forward for networks that don’t want
> to assign addresses outside of IA_NA or IA_PD to provide addressing to
> android devices.
>
> Surely a single IA_NA + a routed IA_PD would meet your requirements, right?
>

IA_PD, even by itself without IA_NA, has none of the concerns in this
thread. RFC 7934 explicitly recommends it, actually. Not sure if enterprise
network operators can or would want to deploy IA_PD though. Is that
something that we can nudge the industry towards?

What I think David was suggesting is: if we reach consensus on some
> reasonable value of N, then the IETF could write a BCP to that effect. That
> would help to some extent, because if an operator complains that the
> implementation does not work on a network that has N=1, the OS developer
> could point to the BCP as justification for why.
>
> I don’t think that’s really necessary. I think there are already adequate
> documents about single-address is less than ideal in the existing RFCs/BCPs.
>

The existing BCPs also say that running an IA_NA-only network is not
recommended, but that doesn't prevent folks from saying it's necessary. I
think we'd want to make a stronger statement than that.