David Härdeman

And some more random points that don't fit some specific line(s) in the diff: - I think that there's no check that the to-be-registered address is of global scope? (GUA/ULA)...

> Note to self: do we want a configure tuneable? I don't think it's necessary...if we're running a DHCPv6 server, it doesn't seem to serve any real purpose to not...

> > * I think that there's no check that the to-be-registered address is of global scope? (GUA/ULA) > > You're right. There is not (yet). The spec defines no...

> Thanks for the comprehensive review @Alphix. This already feels like a better result. If those last few changes look good - then I'll squash. I think I'll just keep...

> Basically, `assign_na()` stuffs IA_NA(type 3)->IA Addr addresses in our linked list (we have T1, T2, constructed host_id), but RFC9686 sends one naked IA Addr (type 5), while odhcpd IA...

> OK - the exchanges work with this, although the lease handling is still not yet ready. Did you implement it in `odhcp6c` as well, or how are you testing...

Awesome, I'll post a draft of the thing I'm working on....hopefully this evening (CET) or tomorrow...I hope you'll find that both of our projects will dovetail nicely...

> Awesome, I'll post a draft of the thing I'm working on....hopefully this evening (CET) or tomorrow...I hope you'll find that both of our projects will dovetail nicely... @systemcrash see...

> It doesn't look too complex at first read. Heh, whenever I have to touch `src/dhcpv6.c` and `src/dhcpv6-ia.c`, I'm already scared, and there's *lots* of little details in RFC9686 that...

> [RFC3315 - 15.11](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3315#section-15.11) RFC3315 is pretty ancient, I think you want [RFC8514bis](https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-dhc-rfc8415bis-12.html) :) This is actually already supported in `odhcpd` both for DHCPv4 and DHCPv6. *But* it's only supported...