[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Mac OS X 10.7, still no DHCPv6
On Feb 28, 2011, at 7:34 AM, Joe Abley wrote:
> 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.
>> 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.
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
>> 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.
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.
>> 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.
For some situations at this point, that may not actually be true. It will be soon enough that it won't even be possible.