In message <[email protected]> Ted Lemon writes: > On Sep 12, 2012, at 2:41 AM, Ray Hunter <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Ted, respect your DHCP/DNS knowledge, but if we need a DHCP server > > anyway in Homenet, why don't we go for the classic enterprise set up > > that has run for years for IPv4, rather than trying to shoe horn > > locally assigned SLAAC addresses into global DNS? > > Two reasons. First, there's strong opposition to this, and so it will > never happen, whether it is the right idea or not (I don't think it's > particularly the right idea, although I'm not vehemently opposed to it > either). Secondly, it precludes the use of CGA by hosts.
Not using SLAAC does not preclude the use of CGA (RFC3971). The host can pick its own address with DHCP and use INFORM. It won't stop the host from using CGA or SEND (secure ND, RFC3972). Not that I think very highly of CGA as a security measure to start with but it could save a TCP RST on a TCP session running a protocol secured at the application layer and is lighter weight than IPSEC. That CGA was proposed in the first place is further proof that 128 bits in IPv6 addresses was pure folly. Unfortunately that decision dates all the way back to around 1995 and the huge addresses has been one reason IPv6 has been so slow to catch on. CGA tells us that the bottom 64 bits serves no purpose so we might as well use it for something else. The Flow ID field is another useless wart. Curtis _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
