[138087] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Mac OS X 10.7, still no DHCPv6
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Karl Auer)
Mon Feb 28 02:06:44 2011
From: Karl Auer <kauer@biplane.com.au>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <20110227223924.DF0E3B0E741@drugs.dv.isc.org>
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 10:53:55 +1100
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
--=-tH4fLyHaqQtSrebFpt31
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Mon, 2011-02-28 at 09:39 +1100, Mark Andrews wrote:
> DHCP kills privacy addresses.
> DHCP kills CGAs.
For temporary addresses couldn't a client clamp the upper limits of its
received lifetimes to the desired lifetimes, then rebind instead of
renew, sending a DECLINE if it gets the same address (as it presumably
will)?
The "temporaryness" would then be pretty much in the hands of the client
(arguably where it belongs). That does kill the privacy aspect of
temporary addresses, at least locally. Perhaps that is only a partial
loss, as the addresses would still be "private" as far as the wider
world was concerned.
How does ISC DHCPv6 allocate addresses? Random, sequential...?
Regards, K.
--=20
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Karl Auer (kauer@biplane.com.au) +61-2-64957160 (h)
http://www.biplane.com.au/kauer/ +61-428-957160 (mob)
GPG fingerprint: DA41 51B1 1481 16E1 F7E2 B2E9 3007 14ED 5736 F687
Old fingerprint: B386 7819 B227 2961 8301 C5A9 2EBC 754B CD97 0156
--=-tH4fLyHaqQtSrebFpt31
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEABECAAYFAk1q5BMACgkQMAcU7Vc29oeHIQCfcFAeUYv13rGhF4ViACJe8xHI
QZIAoNAfG744pfSZSM3p4fGNpzyXg6It
=hxri
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--=-tH4fLyHaqQtSrebFpt31--
