In message <1298850835.2109.33.camel@karl>, Karl Auer writes:
On Mon, 2011-02-28 at 09:39 +1100, Mark Andrews wrote:
DHCP kills privacy addresses. DHCP kills CGAs.
For temporary addresses couldn't a client clamp the upper limits of its received lifetimes to the desired lifetimes, then rebind instead of renew, sending a DECLINE if it gets the same address (as it presumably will)?
Not quite the same. With privacy addresses you still have a stable address.
The "temporaryness" would then be pretty much in the hands of the client (arguably where it belongs). That does kill the privacy aspect of temporary addresses, at least locally. Perhaps that is only a partial loss, as the addresses would still be "private" as far as the wider world was concerned.
How does ISC DHCPv6 allocate addresses? Random, sequential...?
Regards, K.
--=20 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Karl Auer (kauer@biplane.com.au) +61-2-64957160 (h) http://www.biplane.com.au/kauer/ +61-428-957160 (mob)
GPG fingerprint: DA41 51B1 1481 16E1 F7E2 B2E9 3007 14ED 5736 F687 Old fingerprint: B386 7819 B227 2961 8301 C5A9 2EBC 754B CD97 0156
--=-tH4fLyHaqQtSrebFpt31 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEABECAAYFAk1q5BMACgkQMAcU7Vc29oeHIQCfcFAeUYv13rGhF4ViACJe8xHI QZIAoNAfG744pfSZSM3p4fGNpzyXg6It =hxri -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--=-tH4fLyHaqQtSrebFpt31--
-- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org