4 ms·
>In what universe does implementing DHCP-PD but not 'regular' DHCPv6 make any kind of sense? Their policy makes a lot of sense. It's hindering ipv6 deployment,
by aboardRat4 7mo ago
>In what universe does implementing DHCP-PD but not 'regular' DHCPv6 make any kind of sense?
Their policy makes a lot of sense. It's hindering ipv6 deployment, but it is preventing ISPs from allocating less than /64 to customers. It has nothing to do with standards actually.
Dhcp-pd makes a lot of sense though, because if an isp is willing to give you a prefix, they are by default nice guys.
- lxgr 7mo agoYou really think they’re doing all of this as some elaborate “all or nothing” v6 deployment bargaining chip?
- aboardRat4 7mo agoYes. I'm not an insider, of course.
- lxgr 7mo agoI don’t think anyone is passionate enough about IPv6 for a conspiracy like that, to be honest, especially when there’s a much simpler explanation: SLAAC is both older and much more common, and Google just implemented the bare minimum.
- aboardRat4 7mo agodhcp-pd is not "bare minimum".
- lxgr 7mo agoThey implemented that many years later, and with a clearly stated use case which isn't possible using SLAAC alone, unlike regular address assignment.
- zadikian 7mo agoThat's probably why. But this is why the defaults matter so much and it's not simply "you do you."
- throw0101c 7mo agoThis is about client devices on home and corporate networks connecting to (e.g.) Wifi, and not about ISP connections and addresses on the WAN port of your home router. Why should my Pixel 10 send out DHCP-PD packets when it connects to Wifi, but not DHCPv6?
- aboardRat4 7mo agoBecause they only implement the methods which force ISPs to give you /64.
- lxgr 7mo agoLike SLAAC...?