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

[Victor Kuarsingh <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 8:53 AM, Fernando Gont <[e-mail]> wrote:
> On 11/13/2017 09:22 PM, Victor Kuarsingh wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 4:21 AM, Fernando Gont <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> On 11/13/2017 11:07 AM, Ole Troan wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> If the implementation approach is as you've described, this is outside
>>> of the SLAAC specification, indeed (nobody can prevent you from spawning
>>> instances of SLAAC that behave according to the existing standards).
>>> >From a operational point of view, one would wonder why pursue this path
>>> as opposed to e.g. do DHCPv6 -- even if that means: we want to support
>>> Android, and Android does not support DHCPv6.
>>
>> My understanding is one of the authors is an operator and the model
>> represents operational experience and input on this.
>
> This doesn't answer the question I made above.

It was noted "From a operational point of view, one would wonder why
pursue this path as opposed to e.g. do DHCPv6".

What I am suggesting is the draft represents an actual operational
point of view from people in the field.

However, the methods described don't inhibit other choices to be made
in other networks, with perhaps other circumstances, to use DHCPv6.

regards,

Victor K

>
>
> --
> Fernando Gont
> SI6 Networks
> e-mail: [e-mail]
> PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492
>
>
>
>