In-line. On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 3:10 PM, Doug Barton <do...@dougbarton.us> wrote:
> On 6/10/15 2:46 PM, Ted Hardie wrote: > >> But understanding whether what we're actually >> looking for is "static" or "single" is a pretty key piece of the >> requirements scoping, and it sounds like "static" is it, at least from >> your perspective. Is that a fair assessment? >> > > Ted, > > I honestly can't tell if you're deliberately misrepresenting my argument, > or if you're just being dense. You snipped the several places in my > previous message where I stated what I think the best way forward is. But > just in case it's the latter, not the former: > > "I think PD is the right answer here of course ..." > > "Meanwhile, DHCPv6 + PD solves all of Lorenzo's stated problems, but he > won't implement it because "DHCP." That's not something you can engineer > around." > > Doug > > I think we lost context here. I started out asking a question in response to this statement by Matthew Huff: Authentication, Authorization, Accounting, ACLS, NMS, IDS, IP management, > custom software, and other roadblocks will certainly stall if not stop IPv6 > deployments in enterprises if there isn’t at least the choice of static, > single IPv6 addresses per device My question was whether a mechanism that could provide a consistent mapping from prefix to user (or device) met the requirements above, whatever size the prefix provided happened to be. I wasn't trying to probe for which mechanism in that part of the question. I understand from your comments that you prefer DHCPv6 +PD. regards, Ted -- > I am conducting an experiment in the efficacy of PGP/MIME signatures. This > message should be signed. If it is not, or the signature does not validate, > please let me know how you received this message (direct, or to a list) and > the mail software you use. Thanks! > >
