3 ms·
> and its privacy extensions are anyway not something ISPs have been friendly to That is an argument for forcing ISPs to support SLAAC, so it's difficult to bi
by p1mrx 3y ago
> and its privacy extensions are anyway not something ISPs have been friendly to
That is an argument for forcing ISPs to support SLAAC, so it's difficult to bill a customer based on the number of devices in their home. ISP-friendly often means user-hostile.
If ISPs can deploy device-counting DHCPv6, then router manufacturers will respond with IPv6 NAT, and then the IPv6 landscape will be as shitty as IPv4.
- tsimionescu 3y agoDevice counting has always been possible with IPv4 routers, and yet I don't know of a single ISP which does this. To be clear, I'm talking of ISP-provided (usually wifi) routers, which at least in my country are extremely common. Those could receive an IPv6 prefix and do DHCPv6 inside your own network.
- p1mrx 3y agoThe concept of an IPv4 NAT router exists today because people in the '90s wanted to connect multiple devices without permission from their ISP. SLAAC lets you extend a network without permission using ND Proxy, whereas DHCPv6 IA_NA can only be extended using NAT. So I think SLAAC is good because ND Proxy is less evil than NAT.
- imoverclocked 3y ago> whereas DHCPv6 IA_NA can only be extended using NAT. Pedantically, it doesn’t force that but it can, right?