Re: Mac OS X 10.7, still no DHCPv6

[Jim Gettys <jg () freedesktop org>]

On 02/28/2011 08:25 AM, Steven Bellovin wrote:
> On Feb 28, 2011, at 1:10 21AM, Randy Bush wrote:
>
> > > I'm not saying there are no uses for DHCPv6, though I suspect
> > > that some of the reasons proposed are more people wanting to do
> > > things the way they always do, rather than making small changes
> > > and ending up with equivalent effort.
> >
> > add noc and doc costs of all changes, please
> Sure.  How do they compare to the total cost of the IPv6 conversion
> excluding SLAAC?  (Btw, for the folks who said that enterprises may
> not want privacy-enhanced addresses -- that isn't clear to me.  While
> they may want it turned off internally, or even when roaming internally,
> I suspect that many companies would really want to avoid having their
> employees tracked when they're traveling.  Imagine -- you know the CEO's
> laptop's MAC address from looking at Received: lines in headers.  (Some
> CEOs do send email to random outsiders -- think of the Steve Jobs-grams
> that some people have gotten.)  You then see the same MAC address with
> a prefix belonging to some potential merger or joint venture target.  You
> may turn on DHCPv6 to avoid that, but his/her home ISP or takeover target
> may not.)

One of the items we worried about at OLPC (not that I remember if we 
ended up doing anything about it), is that in some countries, kidnapping 
is a very serious problem.

Again, having a permanently known identifier being broadcast all the 
time is a potentially a serious security/safety issue.  It must be 
*possible* to be anonymous, even if some environments by policy won't 
provide service if you choose to be anonymous.
                        - Jim