[dhcwg] Re: [v6ops] New draft: DHCPv6 Recommended IPv6 Address Option

Michael Richardson <[email protected]> Fri, 04 Jul 2025 14:02:11 -0400

Newsgroups	gmane.ietf.dhc,gmane.ietf.v6ops,gmane.ietf.ipv6
Message-ID	<[email protected]>

Bernie Volz <[email protected]> wrote:
    > Anyway, the PD assigned isn’t for use on the link on which the traffic
    > to assign it was done, so it would be kind of weird to use an address
    > from it.

Nor would the resulting /128 be on that link.
It would be placed on loopback.
I think it's worth exploring why PD_EXCLUDE seemed too fragile.

As for the DC unnumbered (v6-LL I think) BGP suggestion: that is not mutually exclusive.

The original issue from Erik, as I understand it, is that the infrastructure
needs to know what address to use for management functions.
(That could include where to expect eBGP multihop connections to originate
from, but probably unnumbered is more reliable)

--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]

signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 515 B)