Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> writes: > Ray,
> Without going into details: how about turning this into > draft-hunter-v6ops-something and having the debate over in v6ops? > I think that would be useful, personally. Actually, let me suggest something else. Before spending a whole lot of time on this topic, is there anyone else who thinks there is a problem here that needs solving? The last thing we (as a group) need to do is spend time on a non-problem. Personally, I don't see the issue here. I think the problem as stated is a non-problem. And to be honest, this is the first time I have heard anyone suggest what you describe is a real problem. So I wonder whether anyone else thinks there is a problem here that needs fixing. To the point: > > Ray Hunter wrote: > >> It's definitely going to become an operational FAQ, unless it is very > >> clear whether/how a network operator can force equivalent use of > >> DHCPv4 static address assignment for both source and destination > >> addresses via DHCPv6 (possibly by turning off SLAAC for assignment of > >> GUA on an interface via a flag, or via RFC3484 bis), and how to > >> achieve this effect for all nodes on a link, without resorting to > >> local configuration. So I may as well be the first to ask. A fine way to deal with this problem is not advertise any prefixes in RAs for stateless address autoconfiguration. The network operator is in control here. They decide how/whether DHCP and/or SLAAC is used. Why is this not sufficient? Thomas -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
