[129066] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: end-user ipv6 deployment and concerns about privacy
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David W. Hankins)
Tue Aug 24 16:37:51 2010
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 13:42:39 -0700
From: "David W. Hankins" <David_Hankins@isc.org>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <4C6C53A4.7060005@brightok.net>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
--0hHDr/TIsw4o3iPK
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 04:41:56PM -0500, Jack Bates wrote:
> prefixes to the unnumbered interface. If you use dslam level controls,=20
> you'll most likely being using DHCPv6 TA addressing with PD on top of it,=
=20
> which works well. Most of which can support quick static/dynamic=20
> capabilities as it does with v4.
This is surprising to me, can you comment on why DHCPv6 TA is being
used in this scenario?
--=20
David W. Hankins BIND 10 needs more DHCP voices.
Software Engineer There just aren't enough in our heads.
Internet Systems Consortium, Inc. http://bind10.isc.org/
--0hHDr/TIsw4o3iPK
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAkx0Lr8ACgkQcXeLeWu2vmpCtwCgowd4PCca/InG24eh0pKPlcEa
0N8AmwSx5ijpHaDICc8NhlEoFnKIDSyO
=8UCm
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--0hHDr/TIsw4o3iPK--
