[138065] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Mac OS X 10.7, still no DHCPv6
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Sun Feb 27 20:59:45 2011
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <4D6ADD0F.3070504@bogus.com>
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 17:55:53 -0800
To: Joel Jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
The documents are done, but, I would argue that neither provides a =
mature
set of features.
Yes, they've (sort of) resolved the DNS server issue for SLAAC, but, =
that's
recent and getting it into vendor support will be nice. The lack of NTP =
and
certain other options in SLAAC is still a disappointment and I would
argue that a fully matured SLAAC process would include a mechanism
for specifying extensible choices of things.
For DHCP, the lack of ability to deliver routing policies or =
recommendations
through DHCP is a roadblock for some deployments which is still in place
in the documents and should be fixed to produce a mature implementation.
Owen
On Feb 27, 2011, at 3:23 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
> On 2/27/11 3:08 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> Look, can we stop arguing about whether someone needs DHCP or not,
>> whether they need SLAAC or not. Let's just get both solutions to a =
mature
>> and useful state where a network administrator can pick the one that =
works
>> best for their environment and move on.
>>=20
>> Devices, routers, OSs, etc. should support both. The IETF should stop =
letting
>> the two working groups focus on damaging the other protocol and we =
should
>> stop treating this as a competition or a battle and start treating it =
as options
>> to accomplish a task.
>=20
> The documents are done at least for sufficient pieces to make it work.
> it's in the hands of vendors and has been for a while. The simple fact
> is that if you want to do it a particular way and you have an =
installed
> base that doesn't support doing it that way, then you're not doing it
> that way.
>=20
>> Owen
>>=20
>> On Feb 27, 2011, at 1:25 PM, Franck Martin wrote:
>>=20
>>> Yes I don't understand why we need DHCPv6, true RD did not have DNS =
information to pass, but that is fixed, no?
>>>=20
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Matthew Palmer" <mpalmer@hezmatt.org>
>>> To: nanog@nanog.org
>>> Sent: Sunday, 27 February, 2011 4:06:29 PM
>>> Subject: Re: Mac OS X 10.7, still no DHCPv6
>>>=20
>>> On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 08:56:33AM -0500, Ray Soucy wrote:
>>>> Mac OS X 10.7 does support RDNSS (RFC 5001) so it is able to get =
DNS
>>>> server information in an IPv6-only environment. Of course nobody =
else
>>>> has implemented that yet, making Apple a "special case" host once
>>>> again (I don't even think Cisco supports the option in their T =
series
>>>> yet).
>>>=20
>>> radvd and rdnssd work together on Linux nicely to provide RDNSS =
support.=20
>>> Works a treat.
>>>=20
>>> - Matt
>>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
