On 2/27/11 3:17 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Feb 27, 2011, at 2:39 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
In message <20110227204511.GM27578@virtual.bogons.net>, Simon Lockhart writes:
On Mon Feb 28, 2011 at 07:22:08AM +1100, Mark Andrews wrote:
This is often required for legislation compliance. DHCP does this well.
Does it really matter what address a customer has as long as it comes from the /64, /56 or /48 assigned to them?
You are assuming an access technology that lends itself to subnet-per-custome r.
I run a network with 50,000+ end users using ethernet-based access to the user's room. In IPv4, I run 1 or more subnets per building (depending on the number of rooms in the build). I use DHCP to assign IPs, and record the DHCP assignments allow me to trace users in the event of abuse complaints. I use DHCP Option82 to allow me to correlate multiple devices in a user's room. I feed the DHCP information into my bandwidth management platform to enforce different levels (i.e. speeds) of service per user depending on what they've purchased.
I have yet to come up with a viable solution to do all of the above in IPv6 without using DHCPv6. At the moment, that means that OSX users are not going to get IPv6.
Have you *asked* your vendors for a alternate solution?
DHCP kills privacy addresses.
In many environments, this is a feature, not a bug.
DHCP kills CGAs.
In many environments, this is a feature, not a bug.
I would, in fact, posit that some of the people complaining about the lack of DHCP are doing so precisely because of a desire to kill these things in their environment.
which is fine they just have to kill of their legacy software deployments while they're at it.
Owen