> The upside of DHCP is that it gives the operator a great deal of control. My > observation, though, is that operators generally cede that to more random > processes that run on routers or other equipment. I don't see the argument > for DHCP in context - more for stateless DHCP, which updates parameters on > all of the hosts in a subnet. Would this kind of a service be > interesting/acceptable for operators?
One comment, not directly related to the 6lowpan-nd draft: There are countries where service providers are required to know which customer is using a particular (global) address at a particular time - we need to be able to supply this information to the police on request. This is one of the reasons why the control of (stateful) DHCP is useful, and where "random processes that run on routers or other equipment" make life harder. Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sth...@nethelp.no -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
