Mac OS X 10.7, still no DHCPv6
owen at delong.com
Mon Feb 28 10:14:24 CST 2011
On Feb 28, 2011, at 6:59 AM, Joe Abley wrote:
> On 2011-02-28, at 09:51, Nick Hilliard wrote:
>> 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.
> 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.
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
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
> [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.]
How about attempting to point out the areas where IPv6 could be improved, which, is how
I regard most of this thread.
More information about the NANOG