[138114] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Mac OS X 10.7, still no DHCPv6
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Joe Abley)
Mon Feb 28 10:36:10 2011
From: Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca>
In-Reply-To: <4D6BBEC4.9050403@foobar.org>
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 10:34:54 -0500
To: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: jabley@hopcount.ca
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 2011-02-28, at 10:27, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> On 28/02/2011 14:59, Joe Abley wrote:
>> I'm not sure why people keep
>> fixating on that as an end goal. The future we ought to be working
>> towards is a consistent, reliable, dual-stack environment. There's no
>> point worrying about v6-only operations if we can't get dual-stack
>> working reliably.
>=20
> That's "dual-stack" as in =
"dual-stack-except-one-of-the-stacks-really-doesn't-work-properly-so-we'll=
-fudge-around-it"? :-)
You're describing where we are. I'm talking about where I think we =
should be planning to arrive.
> Look, my original point is that RA is a brilliant solution for a =
problem which never really existed. Now, can we all just ignore RA and =
work towards DHCPv6 because that's what's actually needed in the real =
world?
RA and DHCPv6 work together. It's different from DHCP in IPv4. Run with =
it. Sending people back to the drawing board at this late stage in the =
game (a) isn't going to happen and (b) isn't going to help anybody.
> We haven't got there because I can't plug in my laptop into any =
arbitrary ipv6-only network and expect to be able to load up =
ipv6.google.com.
>=20
> Is that too high a standard to work towards? :-)
As I thought I mentioned, yes. Forget v6-only right now. Dual-stack is =
an operationally-harder problem, and it's a necessary prerequisite.
Joe
