Mac OS X 10.7, still no DHCPv6

Paul Vixie vixie at
Sun Feb 27 23:33:56 CST 2011

there are two replies here.


Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists at> 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> 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.
Paul Vixie

More information about the NANOG mailing list