multiple prefixes

Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpenter at
Mon Feb 11 16:59:53 CET 2013

On 11/02/2013 15:47, Phil Mayers wrote:
> On 11/02/13 15:42, Tim Chown wrote:
>> On 11 Feb 2013, at 14:52, Phil Mayers <p.mayers at IMPERIAL.AC.UK>
>> wrote:
>>> Personally I think caring about client choice of address in
>>> "normal" LAN networks is not time well-spent, but it's something
>>> reasonable people can disagree on.
>> Basically it's either 'we'll control all the addresses in use' or
>> 'we'll accept devices can pick any address and we'll adapt our
>> management and monitoring to work with that'.
> Isn't the former actually "control all addresses in use and accept that
> clients without DHCPv6 are forever lost to us"?
>> Given the proliferation of devices on our network, and that the vast
>> majority are user-owned, we've taken the latter approach.  Whether
>> university campuses are "normal" is another question :)
> Good point; based on what I've spent the day doing, I suspect "normal"
> is something we're very far from...
> On a more general note, we've always managed clients IPv4 address/DNS
> entries quite closely; we've not done that with IPv6 and noticed no ill
> effects, and given the growing domination of wireless/BYOD, I wonder if
> those days aren't coming to a close entirely.

Don't underestimate the conservatism of IT managers in commercial
enterprises, though. Also, only today I was reading about the beginnings
of a reaction against BYOD:

I think we should be happy that IPv6 allows a range of policies
on these matters.


More information about the ipv6-ops mailing list