On Friday 21 November 2008 01:22:24 Fred Baker, you wrote:
I am just dubious about the DHCPv6 solution. I think it needs to be
better studied, so that we understand what (if anything) it would
solve.
I think operational folks can tell you pretty quickly what it solves.
It enables an operator to specify an address for an end system as
opposed to letting the end system dream one up. There are a set of
people who think that is important.
That I understand, and I don't question.
*But*, in the face of a rogue RA specifying autoconfiguration, SLAAC
is
re-enabled, regardless of the legitimate RA and DHCPv6 processing.
If I'm
mistaken and the DHCPv6 solution work, then the document should
clearly say
so. If, as I suspect, it does not solve the problem, then that
should also be
stated.
Given that context, what do you believe needs to change in the
document?
I am not very happy with "[DHCPv6] ramifications remain unclear, and
such a
fundamental change to the IPv6 model of autoconfiguration would need
very
careful consideration."
But if everybody else thinks that's fine, then I will simply shut up.
--
Rémi Denis-Courmont