[138097] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Mac OS X 10.7, still no DHCPv6
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Steven Bellovin)
Mon Feb 28 08:26:08 2011
From: Steven Bellovin <smb@cs.columbia.edu>
In-Reply-To: <m2bp1wpu42.wl%randy@psg.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 08:25:53 -0500
To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
Cc: nanog group <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Feb 28, 2011, at 1:10 21AM, Randy Bush wrote:
>> I'm not saying there are no uses for DHCPv6, though I suspect
>> that some of the reasons proposed are more people wanting to do
>> things the way they always do, rather than making small changes
>> and ending up with equivalent effort.
>
> add noc and doc costs of all changes, please
>
Sure. How do they compare to the total cost of the IPv6 conversion
excluding SLAAC? (Btw, for the folks who said that enterprises may
not want privacy-enhanced addresses -- that isn't clear to me. While
they may want it turned off internally, or even when roaming internally,
I suspect that many companies would really want to avoid having their
employees tracked when they're traveling. Imagine -- you know the CEO's
laptop's MAC address from looking at Received: lines in headers. (Some
CEOs do send email to random outsiders -- think of the Steve Jobs-grams
that some people have gotten.) You then see the same MAC address with
a prefix belonging to some potential merger or joint venture target. You
may turn on DHCPv6 to avoid that, but his/her home ISP or takeover target
may not.)
--Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
