On Fri, 4 Mar 2011, Sander Steffann wrote:
Hi,
And on that note, let me hereby register my opposition to the adoption of this
draft as a working group item on the grounds that this change is not
sufficiently useful to justify such a late change to the core protocol
specification. Enterprise networks should expect to pay for the proper costs
of auditing, and if that includes the cost of requiring every host to use
DHCPv6 to obtain both temporary and persistent addresses, then that's an
adequate solution to the auditing problem without requiring any change to the
core specifications.
+1
And existing hosts/implementations will ignore the new flag anyway, so how can
an enterprise 'guarantee' that privacy extensions will not be used? My feeling
is that this I-D will only cause confusion without solving the problem.
I also agree. Let's not change RA more than is absolutely needed. The
problem description sounds exactly like what DHCPv6 was designed to solve.
If you need to track what IPs are used at a given time and by whom, SLAAC
is not the way to go.
The proposed solution doesn't solve the problem described.
--
Mikael Abrahamsson email: swm...@swm.pp.se
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
