DHCPv6 PD oddity with client changing prefix size.
farmer at umn.edu
Tue Aug 15 14:42:38 UTC 2017
On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 4:47 AM, Simon Hobson <dhcp1 at thehobsons.co.uk>
> Tim DeNike <tim at denike.us> wrote:
> > #1 reason. We had a couple of consumer routers that wouldn't take
> > anything other than a /64. I honestly can't remember what brand they
> > were.
> Well I suppose that's not too bad a reason.
> I suspect that they'd be interested in feedback over at v6ops list <
> v6ops at ietf.org>, https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops - especially
> if you can name and shame the manufacturer responsible. I know there's
> recently been some work on a standards (or could be BCP) document
> specifying what consumer routers should do/be capable of.
> I think "router unable to accept other than a single /64 prefix" could be
> considered a hindrance to IPv6 takeup.
I've heard this reason before, and I have no reason to believe it not
true. However, it is now time to name and shame, otherwise this will
become lore. And, once this becomes lore it will be difficult to convince
others that you don't have to default to a single /64. Therefore, we are
now at the point that we cannot accept this excuse without naming the
vendor. Without the name of the vendor there is no way to apply pressure
to fix the issue and it only serves to reinforces the idea that you have to
default to /64 for DHCPv6 PD, without making it possible to fix the issue.
So please name and shame, we can no longer tolerate CPE that only accept a
single /64 from DHCPv6 PD.
David Farmer Email:farmer at umn.edu
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the dhcp-users