[Dnsmasq-discuss] Cunning plan, or hideous hack?

[Vladislav Grishenko]

Oh yes, misread, sorry.

> There are a lot of clients in the world now (eg all
> Android phones, at least per-ICS) which don't use privacy extensions and
> can't do DHCPv6 or don't do it by default. This hack is useful for those.

Got it, afaik Android devices, in general, use Android_%15d as dhcp name
template, and most of them don't allow to configure it.
Privacy-enabled SLAAC hosts (all Windows from XP uses that by default)
either will use DHCPv6 or will jammed.
This means, if enabled, ra-dhcpv4-name hack will be useful in rare cases and
unreliable in common.

Best Regards, Vladislav Grishenko


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Simon Kelley [mailto:simon at thekelleys.org.uk]
> Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2012 8:47 PM
> To: Vladislav Grishenko
> Cc: Dnsmasq-discuss at lists.thekelleys.org.uk
> Subject: Re: [Dnsmasq-discuss] Cunning plan, or hideous hack?
> 
> On 08/03/12 13:52, Vladislav Grishenko wrote:
> > Hi Simon,
> > With enabled IPv6 privacy extensions, the OS generates address by
> > combining advertised prefix and random host id, definitely not MAC-
> derived.
> > So, there's no any way to know host address, even if a "server" knows
> > prefix and client's MAC, and any attempts to do this is a kind of
> > hack, which is not supposed to work.
> 
> That's true, and I think I said so in my original mail. The only client on
my
> wireless network at the moment which uses privacy extensions by default is
> my daughter's Win 7 Laptop. That can be configured to use
> DHCPv6 if necessary. There are a lot of clients in the world now (eg all
> Android phones, at least per-ICS) which don't use privacy extensions and
> can't do DHCPv6 or don't do it by default. This hack is useful for those.
> 
> Simon.