> > > The common argument from the "stateful-only crowd" seems to be that > > > they need to have a log of IPv6 address/MAC addresses for audit > > > purposes, and therefore think they need to have stateful, database > > > driven addressing to do that, probably because that is how it has > > > been done in IPv4. > > > > In our (service provider) case the basic requirement is to be able to > > associate a dynamic IPv6 address with a specific *customer*. > > Can't you use RADIUS for that? I'm working in a SLAAC > environment for SP customers over PPP/PPPoE or L2TP, and RADIUS is > reporting everything we're interested in knowing, including username, > PPP IPV6CP IIDs, chosen dynamic prefixes for the PPP session and dynamic > delegated prefixes if they're requested and the customer falls in that > service type.
Sure we can. If we redo our DHCP infrastructure to use Radius instead. It is a major change, and we don't really want to do it unless we absolutely have to. There are plenty of *other* bumps in the road on our way to IPv6. I see no need to introduce more of these than necessary. 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------
