In message <1298850835.2109.33.camel@karl>, Karl Auer writes: > 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)?
Not quite the same. With privacy addresses you still have a stable address. > 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. > > --=20 > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Karl Auer (ka...@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 > > --=-tH4fLyHaqQtSrebFpt31 > Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" > Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) > > iEYEABECAAYFAk1q5BMACgkQMAcU7Vc29oeHIQCfcFAeUYv13rGhF4ViACJe8xHI > QZIAoNAfG744pfSZSM3p4fGNpzyXg6It > =hxri > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > --=-tH4fLyHaqQtSrebFpt31-- > > -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org
