Mac OS X 10.7, still no DHCPv6
vixie at isc.org
Sun Feb 27 23:33:56 CST 2011
there are two replies here.
Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists at gmail.com> writes:
> ..., what's the harm in dhcpv6? (different strokes and all that)
only the egos and reputations of those who said that stateless autoconf
was all ipv6 needed. (which is a small price to pay, according to me.)
"Dobbins, Roland" <rdobbins at arbor.net> writes:
> On Feb 28, 2011, at 10:47 AM, Steven Bellovin wrote:
>> Also don't forget privacy-enhanced addresses.
> Yes, which have extremely negative opsec connotations in terms of
> complicating traceback.
/64 csma subnets with low order 64 bits controlled by infectable pc's means
we'll be blackholing by /64 when we blackhole in ipv6. it's no big deal.
More information about the NANOG