|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
From: Paul Vixie <vixie@isc.org> To: nanog@merit.edu Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 05:33:56 +0000 Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org there are two replies here. --- Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com> writes: > ..., what's the harm in dhcpv6? (different strokes and all that) only the egos and reputations of those who said that stateless autoconf was all ipv6 needed. (which is a small price to pay, according to me.) --- "Dobbins, Roland" <rdobbins@arbor.net> writes: > On Feb 28, 2011, at 10:47 AM, Steven Bellovin wrote: > >> Also don't forget privacy-enhanced addresses. > > Yes, which have extremely negative opsec connotations in terms of > complicating traceback. /64 csma subnets with low order 64 bits controlled by infectable pc's means we'll be blackholing by /64 when we blackhole in ipv6. it's no big deal. -- Paul Vixie KI6YSY
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |