On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 11:14 PM, Chris Adams <c...@cmadams.net> wrote: > Once upon a time, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu <valdis.kletni...@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?