On 02/28/2011 08:25 AM, Steven Bellovin wrote:
On Feb 28, 2011, at 1:10 21AM, Randy Bush wrote:
I'm not saying there are no uses for DHCPv6, though I suspect that some of the reasons proposed are more people wanting to do things the way they always do, rather than making small changes and ending up with equivalent effort.
add noc and doc costs of all changes, please
Sure. How do they compare to the total cost of the IPv6 conversion excluding SLAAC? (Btw, for the folks who said that enterprises may not want privacy-enhanced addresses -- that isn't clear to me. While they may want it turned off internally, or even when roaming internally, I suspect that many companies would really want to avoid having their employees tracked when they're traveling. Imagine -- you know the CEO's laptop's MAC address from looking at Received: lines in headers. (Some CEOs do send email to random outsiders -- think of the Steve Jobs-grams that some people have gotten.) You then see the same MAC address with a prefix belonging to some potential merger or joint venture target. You may turn on DHCPv6 to avoid that, but his/her home ISP or takeover target may not.)
One of the items we worried about at OLPC (not that I remember if we ended up doing anything about it), is that in some countries, kidnapping is a very serious problem. Again, having a permanently known identifier being broadcast all the time is a potentially a serious security/safety issue. It must be *possible* to be anonymous, even if some environments by policy won't provide service if you choose to be anonymous. - Jim