nanog mailing list archives
Re: end-user ipv6 deployment and concerns about privacy
From: "David W. Hankins" <David_Hankins () isc org>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 13:42:39 -0700
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 04:41:56PM -0500, Jack Bates wrote:
prefixes to the unnumbered interface. If you use dslam level controls, you'll most likely being using DHCPv6 TA addressing with PD on top of it, which works well. Most of which can support quick static/dynamic capabilities as it does with v4.
This is surprising to me, can you comment on why DHCPv6 TA is being used in this scenario? -- David W. Hankins BIND 10 needs more DHCP voices. Software Engineer There just aren't enough in our heads. Internet Systems Consortium, Inc. http://bind10.isc.org/
Attachment:
_bin
Description:
Current thread:
- Re: end-user ipv6 deployment and concerns about privacy, (continued)
- Re: end-user ipv6 deployment and concerns about privacy Leen Besselink (Aug 19)
- Re: end-user ipv6 deployment and concerns about privacy Joel Jaeggli (Aug 21)
- Re: end-user ipv6 deployment and concerns about privacy Owen DeLong (Aug 21)
- Re: end-user ipv6 deployment and concerns about privacy Joel Jaeggli (Aug 22)
- Re: end-user ipv6 deployment and concerns about privacy Mark Smith (Aug 20)
- Re: end-user ipv6 deployment and concerns about privacy Joel Jaeggli (Aug 21)
- Re: end-user ipv6 deployment and concerns about privacy Mark Smith (Aug 18)
- Re: end-user ipv6 deployment and concerns about privacy Hannes Frederic Sowa (Aug 18)
- Re: end-user ipv6 deployment and concerns about privacy Mark Smith (Aug 21)
- Re: end-user ipv6 deployment and concerns about privacy David W. Hankins (Aug 24)