On 2/27/11 3:17 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > > 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.
which is fine they just have to kill of their legacy software deployments while they're at it. > Owen > > >
