I would have no reason to assume there is anything designed or planned here. It's just people don't use IPv6, and IPv6 things can be broken and nothing happens. Even if the feature would work with a larger number of interfaces. I don't think the design is going to be very desirable, as you cannot guarantee which prefix is assigned to which interface, which implies if you add/remove downstream interfaces, you reorder prefixes they get. And you probably don't want your servers to change their prefixes when you add new VLAN. I don't blame Juniper here at all, this is every vendor, every feature. I blame myself, and the community. We were here when IPv6 happened, and we cocked it up. This pretend dual-stack environment, where IPv6 actually isn't business critical, wasn't supposed to happen. Time gap between IPv4 RFC and IPv6 RFC is smaller than the time gap between IPv6 RFC and today, we've had longer tenure of migration to IPv6 than we have IPv4 only. There is no other way to frame this than as an abject failure. And trying to paint this in some other light, just removes any traction to actually solve this. Actual solution will need some kind of voluntary or involuntary action by oligarchic big tech companies, so that they'd have a future date upon which they stop serving IPv4, which will create motivation for downstreams to adopt IPv6. Maybe someone could convince the FTC, FCC or DOJ that IPv4 is an antitrust issue they need to regulate. Which it absolutely is, it is an additional barrier of entry for many types of businesses favoring established large players over new entrants. On Sun, 2 Nov 2025 at 05:34, Andrew Kirch via NANOG <nanog () lists nanog org> wrote: