Re: MVP for a DHCP server
Mouse <[email protected]> Wed, 16 Jul 2025 08:09:25 -0400 (EDT)
| Newsgroups | gmane.os.netbsd.devel.network |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
>> [...] >> I maintain that per-device-IP firewalls help a lot with the second >> category, generally stopping category 2 devices from sending data to >> the cloud. (One should put them on a separate VLAN/SSID, and >> deconfigure IPv6, too.) >> Of course this is somewhat difficult, but I can't see it leading to >> a conclusion "anyone who wants to static-assign IP addresses is >> confused". > I just don't want to maintain anything ephemeral like an IP address. Not everyone considers IP addresses ephemeral. > Why can't we instead blacklist by ethernet address in NPF? Possibly because the NPF machine and the devices being blocked have a router between them? Possibly because the devices vary their MACs? Possibly because the administrative burden of updating the NPF config each time a new device is to be blacklisted (or whitelisted, if the configuration blocks by default) is seen as the greater cost? To steal a phrase from X11, "mechanism, not policy". I think it's not the DHCP server's place to dictate policies like "IP addresses are ephemeral" or "phone-home blocking must be on the first-hop router". I would say it should provide mechanisms by which the network admin can implement whatever policy is appropriate for the site in question. /~\ The ASCII Mouse \ / Ribbon Campaign X Against HTML [email protected] / \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B