DHCP code in 2.0.4+

Phil Mayers p.mayers at imperial.ac.uk
Mon Jun 8 18:50:37 CEST 2009

A.L.M.Buxey at lboro.ac.uk wrote:
> Hi,
>> local-link, SCTP gets exciting too here).  It's going to make it awkward 
>> to deal with user accountability when most systems are built around the 
>> concept that the user has one IPv4 address...yet alone in addition 
>> several IPv6 addresses some of which vary over time.
> add into that dynamic IPv6 addreses in the link-local domain when
> systems want to talk to eachother. noone in the rest of the network
> needs to know those addresses so how/when do they get logged and known about? ;-)

It's a tricky one, but you *do* need to record them. We've already had 
AUP-actionable abuse taking place over link-local mechanisms. Without 
the logging, we'd have been in a very awkward place.

>> I think that's why a lot of organisations are not keen on stateless IPv6 
>> address assignment but are keener on DHCPv6.  I personally would just 
>> like an event driven (no SNMP polling...) method that lets me log 
>> address<->MAC address usage.
> aye. stateless router solicitated addreses just work but then you've got to
> keep track/log them...and they can often change, nice. DHCPv6 would
> be okay - ha. if only clients actually supported it!

If only the RFCs weren't broken...

More information about the Freeradius-Users mailing list