Android (lack of) support for DHCPv6

[ted.ietf at gmail.com (Ted Hardie)]

?In-line.

?
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 3:10 PM, Doug Barton <dougb at 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!
>
>