Eric Luehrsen <ericluehr...@hotmail.com> writes: > It appears many other severs and clients dont implement IA_TA. Its a lost > option.
Sure. Very few want this feature. We must however assume that those who do want it will implement it. > It should not break "expectations" as this an central administrative > option. A client requesting an IA_NA expects a non-temporary address. > If central IT doesnt want user base devices to be permanently reachable > or traceable, then that is their authority to choose. Definitely. They can easily achieve this by not providing any IA_NA adresses. > But on the flip side, central IT doesnt want the insanity of SLAAC > Privacy all over their network. Consider a fortune 500 company or > university with accountibilty and traceability in legal or internal > policy requirements. > > RFC are so namef for a reason and a good working model can change them. OK, I think you just explained your level of understanding. Thanks Bjørn _______________________________________________ Lede-dev mailing list Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev
