[138119] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Mac OS X 10.7, still no DHCPv6
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Mon Feb 28 11:19:01 2011
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <28D10D13-988B-4C7D-833B-EBA6E1BC1A63@hopcount.ca>
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 08:14:24 -0800
To: Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Feb 28, 2011, at 6:59 AM, Joe Abley wrote:
>=20
> On 2011-02-28, at 09:51, Nick Hilliard wrote:
>=20
>> I will be a lot more sympathetic about listening to arguments / =
explanations about this insanity the day that the IETF filters out arp =
and ipv4 packets from the conference network and depends entirely on =
ipv6 for connectivity for the entire conference.
>=20
> It's hard to see v6-only networks as a viable, general-purpose =
solution to anything in the foreseeable future. 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
I disagree.
Those of us who know what it costs to do double maintenance on a =
continuing basis would like to
drive a stake through the heart of IPv4 sooner rather than later. =
IPv6-only viability is the real goal.
This is, in the long run, a transition from v4 to v6. Dual-stack is an =
interim stop-gap, not an end
solution.
Dual stack is mostly working reliably at this point. There are some =
improvements needed in IPv6
for enterprises and they are needed for both dual stack and for IPv6 =
only, so, I'm not sure why
that becomes particularly relevant to this thread.
However, we should always keep our eye on the prize as it were. That's =
the eventuality of
realizing huge cost savings (lower CAM utilization, better scaling, =
etc.) of a v6-only
world.
> [I also find the knee-jerk "it's different from IPv4, the IETF is =
stupid" memes to be tiring. Identifying questionable design decisions =
with hindsight is hardly the exclusive domain of IPv6; there are =
tremendously more crufty workarounds in IPv4, and far more available =
hindsight. Complaining about IPv6 because it's different from IPv4 =
doesn't get us anywhere.]
>=20
How about attempting to point out the areas where IPv6 could be =
improved, which, is how
I regard most of this thread.
Owen
