DHCPv6 PD oddity with client changing prefix size.

[Tim DeNike]

I honestly don't remember.. It was something off the wall and happened over
a year ago.  Not your typical netgear/linksys/dlink consumer router.

If I come across it again, ill keep it in mind and let you know.


Im still not pro /48 per user.. Flexible availability of larger subnets for
sure.  Primary concern is compatibility, not giving everyone 65000 subnets
by default.  98% of our users that have IPv6 probably don't even realize
they have it.  Thats the way it should be.  The transition should be
transparent to the sheep.  Literally 0.04% of our user base has requested
longer than a /64.

The default should be what works in every case, not what wed like to see in
a perfect world.  The world is hardly perfect.  The last thing we need to
do is have help desk arguing with customers about how their $42 dollar
no-brand router sucks and they are stupid for getting it.







On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 10:42 AM, David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu> wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 4:47 AM, Simon Hobson <dhcp1 at thehobsons.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> Thanks.
>
>
> --
> ===============================================
> 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 <(612)%20626-0815>
> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952 <(612)%20812-9952>
> ===============================================
>
> _______________________________________________
> dhcp-users mailing list
> dhcp-users at lists.isc.org
> https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcp-users
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.isc.org/pipermail/dhcp-users/attachments/20170815/5eb8aeb2/attachment-0001.html>