Hi, > And on that note, let me hereby register my opposition to the adoption of > this draft as a working group item on the grounds that this change is not > sufficiently useful to justify such a late change to the core protocol > specification. Enterprise networks should expect to pay for the proper costs > of auditing, and if that includes the cost of requiring every host to use > DHCPv6 to obtain both temporary and persistent addresses, then that's an > adequate solution to the auditing problem without requiring any change to the > core specifications.
+1 And existing hosts/implementations will ignore the new flag anyway, so how can an enterprise 'guarantee' that privacy extensions will not be used? My feeling is that this I-D will only cause confusion without solving the problem. - Sander -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
