[IPv6 over SLAAC for access Interface]

[nguyenduchoa37]

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.

A clear and concise description of what the problem is. Ex. I'm always frustrated when [...]

Describe the solution you'd like

A clear and concise description of what you want to happen.

Describe alternatives you've considered

A clear and concise description of any alternative solutions or features you've considered.

Additional context

Add any other context or screenshots about the feature request here.

[nguyenduchoa37]

Hi Chris.

We are uing BLASTER for some test cases in Service Provider. One of them is L3VPN test with IPv4/IPv6. With IPv4 access interface can get IP automatically, but with IPv6 it seems does not support.
I understand it's possible to deploy a DHCPv6 servers and provide IPv6 for access interface, but it's so comlicated. Can you plan a feature for access interface to get IPv6 over SLAAC ? If possible, we can easily test IPv6 L3VPN or any stream with IPv6.

[GIC-de]

I tested this in my setup and it should already work. Here the config I used for this test.

{
    "interfaces": {
        "access": [
            {
                "interface": "veth1.2",
                "type": "ipoe",
                "address": "3.0.0.2",
                "gateway": "3.0.0.1",
                "ipv6-link-local": "fe80::2",
                "dhcpv6": false
            }
        ]
    }
}

[nguyenduchoa37]

Yes.Thank Chris. Let me test and verify with my lab. How is about dynamic port with data stream feature ? *Thanks Regard* *Nguyen Duc Hoa (Mr)*

…

On Tue, Jan 20, 2026 at 6:56 AM Christian Giese ***@***.***> wrote: *GIC-de* left a comment (rtbrick/bngblaster#342) <#342 (comment)> I tested this in my setup and it should already work. Here the config I used for this test. { "interfaces": { "access": [ { "interface": "veth1.2", "type": "ipoe", "address": "3.0.0.2", "gateway": "3.0.0.1", "ipv6-link-local": "fe80::2", "dhcpv6": false } ] } } — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#342 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AJBEHHVVGMSJAF5DUZOKZQT4HY63PAVCNFSM6AAAAACKDJNM2KVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZTONZTGI4TKNZRGI> . You are receiving this because you authored the thread.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[nguyenduchoa37]

Hi Chris. This IPv6 address at access interface can be advertised over a supported IPv6 routing protocol ( OSPFv3 or BGP) ? I see these addresses are link local? *Thanks Regard* *Nguyen Duc Hoa (Mr)*

…

On Tue, Jan 20, 2026, 9:56 PM Christian Giese ***@***.***> wrote: *GIC-de* left a comment (rtbrick/bngblaster#342) <#342 (comment)> I tested this in my setup and it should already work. Here the config I used for this test. { "interfaces": { "access": [ { "interface": "veth1.2", "type": "ipoe", "address": "3.0.0.2", "gateway": "3.0.0.1", "ipv6-link-local": "fe80::2", "dhcpv6": false } ] } } — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#342 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AJBEHHVVGMSJAF5DUZOKZQT4HY63PAVCNFSM6AAAAACKDJNM2KVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZTONZTGI4TKNZRGI> . You are receiving this because you authored the thread.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[GIC-de]

We do not allow routing protocols over access interfaces. In this case, we would need to support SLAAC for network interfaces to use them for routing. On Wed, Jan 28, 2026 at 4:46 PM nguyenduchoa37 ***@***.***> wrote:

…

*nguyenduchoa37* left a comment (rtbrick/bngblaster#342) <#342 (comment)> Hi Chris. This IPv6 address at access interface can be advertised over a supported IPv6 routing protocol ( OSPFv3 or BGP) ? I see these addresses are link local? *Thanks Regard* *Nguyen Duc Hoa (Mr)* On Tue, Jan 20, 2026, 9:56 PM Christian Giese ***@***.***> wrote: > *GIC-de* left a comment (rtbrick/bngblaster#342) > < #342 (comment)> > > I tested this in my setup and it should already work. Here the config I > used for this test. > > { > "interfaces": { > "access": [ > { > "interface": "veth1.2", > "type": "ipoe", > "address": "3.0.0.2", > "gateway": "3.0.0.1", > "ipv6-link-local": "fe80::2", > "dhcpv6": false > } > ] > } > } > > — > Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub > < #342 (comment)>, > or unsubscribe > < https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AJBEHHVVGMSJAF5DUZOKZQT4HY63PAVCNFSM6AAAAACKDJNM2KVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZTONZTGI4TKNZRGI> > . > You are receiving this because you authored the thread.Message ID: > ***@***.***> > — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#342 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABONJOASE3DRVNC4BJYSNQ34JDKUVAVCNFSM6AAAAACKDJNM2KVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZTQMJSGA3TCMZQGI> . You are receiving this because you were assigned.Message ID: ***@***.***>

-- NOTICE TO RECIPIENT This e-mail message and any attachments are confidential and may be privileged. If you received this e-mail in error, any review, use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. Please notify us immediately of the error by return e-mail and please delete this message from your system. For more information about Rtbrick, please visit us at www.rtbrick.com <http://www.rtbrick.com>