On 01/15/2011 11:06 PM, Stephen Davis wrote: >> I'm a full supported for getting rid of NAT when deploying IPv6, but >> have to say the alternative is not all that great either. >> >> Because what do people want, they want privacy, so they use the >> IPv6 privacy extensions. Which are enabled by default on Windows >> when IPv6 is used on XP, Vista and 7. >> >> And now you have no idea who had that IPv6-address at some point >> in time. The solution to that problem is ? I guess the only solution is to >> have the IPv6 equivalant of arpwatch to log the MAC-addresses/IPv6- >> address combinations ? >> >> Or is their an other solution I'm missing. > You can solve this problem any of the ways you could solve it in IPv4. > Either assign static addresses from DHCPv6, or assign static addresses > by hand. If you like privacy, you don't need to even have static from DHCPv6, you could have a new address every day (if you turn off your machine daily).
Everything else can just query DNS for the address.
