[111454] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (TJ)
Thu Feb 5 21:54:43 2009
From: "TJ" <trejrco@gmail.com>
To: <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <20090206000115.GE8174@isc.org>
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 21:52:45 -0500
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
>So it fails in scenarios where enforcing network policy is important.
If the policy is address specific, perhaps.
If the policy is segment specific, no prob.
/TJ
PS - for emphasis, I am not arguing strictly for or against either SLAAC or
DHCPv6.
Both can work, and IMHO should be allowed to do so where desirable.
