On Feb 27, 2011, at 2:39 PM, Mark Andrews wrote: > > In message <20110227204511.gm27...@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. Owen
