|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 08:40:45 -0500 From: Jim Gettys <jg@freedesktop.org> To: nanog@nanog.org <70835095-819D-419A-830E-2B6ECCFE3102@cs.columbia.edu> In-Reply-To: <70835095-819D-419A-830E-2B6ECCFE3102@cs.columbia.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: nanog@nanog.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: North American Network Operators Group <nanog.nanog.org> List-Unsubscribe: <https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog>, <mailto:nanog-request@nanog.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog> List-Post: <mailto:nanog@nanog.org> List-Help: <mailto:nanog-request@nanog.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog>, <mailto:nanog-request@nanog.org?subject=subscribe> Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org On 02/28/2011 08:25 AM, Steven Bellovin wrote: > > 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.) > > One of the items we worried about at OLPC (not that I remember if we ended up doing anything about it), is that in some countries, kidnapping is a very serious problem. Again, having a permanently known identifier being broadcast all the time is a potentially a serious security/safety issue. It must be *possible* to be anonymous, even if some environments by policy won't provide service if you choose to be anonymous. - Jim
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |