[138123] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Mac OS X 10.7, still no DHCPv6
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Mon Feb 28 11:43:53 2011
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <19B340FC-F628-4535-992C-D39D84CE99BD@hopcount.ca>
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 08:40:03 -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 7:34 AM, Joe Abley wrote:
>=20
> On 2011-02-28, at 10:27, Nick Hilliard wrote:
>=20
>> 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"? :-)
>=20
> You're describing where we are. I'm talking about where I think we =
should be planning to arrive.
>=20
Your description sounds more like where we should be making a plane =
change.
The eventual destination is IPv6-only. Dual-stack is a temporary =
stopover along the way.
However, you are partially right in that we should be focusing on =
arriving at the first
stop-over until we arrive there. Then we can start navigating from there =
to the final
destination.
>> 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?
>=20
> 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.
>=20
And the model breaks badly at layers 8-10 in most enterprises and many =
other organizations.
>> 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? :-)
>=20
> As I thought I mentioned, yes. Forget v6-only right now. Dual-stack is =
an operationally-harder problem, and it's a necessary prerequisite.
>=20
For some situations at this point, that may not actually be true. It =
will be soon enough that it won't even be possible.
Owen
