In-line. On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 3:10 PM, Doug Barton <dougb@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!