Re: Disabling temporary addresses by default?

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <[e-mail]> made many good points, and said:
    > The problem is thus NOT that the node has too many addresses, and it is
    > thus NOT to define how many address a node should have, and what would
    > be the default lifetime. There is no good answer for that, this thread
    > has been quite clear about that. The problem is to keep the network in
    > sync with the needs of the hosts so the network can serve them
    > optimally within resources.

    > The ideal would be that the host maintains a state with the network for
    > all the addresses in use, with a sense of lifetime, mobility, and
    > possibly a proof of ownership of the resources that it claims.

    > One can get a lot more by being polite and just asking.

    > So I’m asking. Please look at RFC 8505.

I agree.
And if not 8505, then we need another mechanism to synchronize host/router
state, but first, please take a look.  It's not DHCPv6.

-- 
]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [ 
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        | network architect  [ 
]     [e-mail]  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [