end-user ipv6 deployment and concerns about privacy

David W. Hankins David_Hankins at isc.org
Tue Aug 24 20:42:39 UTC 2010

On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 04:41:56PM -0500, Jack Bates wrote:
> prefixes to the unnumbered interface. If you use dslam level controls, 
> you'll most likely being using DHCPv6 TA addressing with PD on top of it, 
> which works well. Most of which can support quick static/dynamic 
> capabilities as it does with v4.

This is surprising to me, can you comment on why DHCPv6 TA is being
used in this scenario?

David W. Hankins	BIND 10 needs more DHCP voices.
Software Engineer		There just aren't enough in our heads.
Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.		http://bind10.isc.org/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20100824/0754ae7c/attachment.sig>

More information about the NANOG mailing list