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)? 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. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 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