[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Mac OS X 10.7, still no DHCPv6



In message <1298850835.2109.33.camel at karl>, Karl Auer writes:
> 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)?

Not quite the same.  With privacy addresses you still have a stable
address.
 
> 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 at 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--
> 
> 
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka at isc.org