On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 11:14 PM, Chris Adams <cma@cmadams.net> wrote:
Once upon a time, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu <Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu> said:
On Wed, 10 Jun 2015 12:59:47 +1000, Karl Auer said:
Hope the question doesn't make me look like an idiot, but why does using stateful DHCPv6 mean having to go back to NAT?
How does the device ask for a *second* DHCPv6'ed address for tethering or whatever?
It's called "bridging". Let whatever is being tethered ask directly for its own address.
it remains to be seen if that would actually work, and it's probably network-dependent, right? If your notional network implemented SAVI restrictions then a single dhcpv6 assigned address might be all you get. A bunch of this discussion (on both sides) seems (to me) get get back to: "I designed something, took a left turn and kept on driving.... and I just don't want to revisit assumptions." Example: "I do not want to support SLAAC because I don't want to do RDNSS, I will provide dns servers/etc via dhcpv6" Example: "We will not support DHCPv6 because people might assign one address only." Both of those have a way to a solution, neither has to be a hard/fast rule, right?