Mac OS X 10.7, still no DHCPv6

Joel Jaeggli joelja at bogus.com
Sun Feb 27 17:25:13 CST 2011


On 2/27/11 3:17 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> 
> On Feb 27, 2011, at 2:39 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
> 
>>
>> In message <20110227204511.GM27578 at virtual.bogons.net>, Simon Lockhart writes:
>>> On Mon Feb 28, 2011 at 07:22:08AM +1100, Mark Andrews wrote:
>>>>> This is often required for legislation compliance. DHCP does this well.
>>>>
>>>> Does it really matter what address a customer has as long as it comes from
>>>> the /64, /56 or /48 assigned to them?
>>>
>>> You are assuming an access technology that lends itself to subnet-per-custome
>>> r.
>>>
>>> I run a network with 50,000+ end users using ethernet-based access to the
>>> user's room. In IPv4, I run 1 or more subnets per building (depending on the 
>>> number of rooms in the build). I use DHCP to assign IPs, and record the 
>>> DHCP assignments allow me to trace users in the event of abuse complaints. I
>>> use DHCP Option82 to allow me to correlate multiple devices in a user's room.
>>> I feed the DHCP information into my bandwidth management platform to enforce
>>> different levels (i.e. speeds) of service per user depending on what they've
>>> purchased.
>>>
>>> I have yet to come up with a viable solution to do all of the above in IPv6
>>> without using DHCPv6. At the moment, that means that OSX users are not going
>>> to get IPv6.
>>
>> Have you *asked* your vendors for a alternate solution?
>>
>> DHCP kills privacy addresses.
> 
> In many environments, this is a feature, not a bug.
> 
>> DHCP kills CGAs.
>>
> In many environments, this is a feature, not a bug.
> 
> I would, in fact, posit that some of the people complaining about the lack of
> DHCP are doing so precisely because of a desire to kill these things in their
> environment.

which is fine they just have to kill of their legacy software
deployments while they're at it.

> Owen
> 
> 
> 





More information about the NANOG mailing list