Mac OS X 10.7, still no DHCPv6

Mon Feb 28 22:04:09 UTC 2011

On Feb 28, 2011, at 12:34 PM, Joe Abley wrote:

> 
> On 2011-02-28, at 15:27, Randy Bush wrote:
> 
>> o if ipv6 can not operate as the only protocol, and we will be out
>>   of ipv4 space and have to deploy 6-only networks, it damned well
>>   better be able to stand on its own.
> 
> Do you think I was suggesting that IPv6 as a protocol doesn't need to be able to stand on its own two feet? Because I wasn't; that's patently absurd.
> 
It is both absurd and pretty much exactly what you said.

> However, a fixation on v6-only operation makes no sense for general-purpose deployment when most content and peers are only reachable via IPv4.
> 
I guess this is a matter of perspective. For some of us that already have complete dual stack deployments,
focusing on the issues present in IPv6-only operation is just the next logical step.

In some cases, I would say that the v6-only considerations are well worth considering as you prepare
to deploy dual-stack so that you don't deploy dual-stack in such a way as to create unnecessary
inter-protocol dependencies that will hurt you later.

The reality is that IPv6-only networks are not likely in the foreseeable future is only a true statement
if your foreseeable future ends in the past. There are already a certain number of functional operating
deployed IPv6-only networks. Further, it's not going to be more than a few months before we start
seeing networks that have very limited or degraded IPv4 capabilities, if any, due to the inability to
grant addresses to new networks in some areas.

> I appreciate that there are walled gardens, captive mobile applications, telemetry networks and other niche applications for which v6-only networks make sense today. I'm not talking about them. I'm talking about the network that supports what the average user thinks of as the Internet.
> 
And how do you think the average residential end user is going to see the IPv4 internet next year?

> The immediate task at hand is a transition from IPv4-only to dual stack, regardless of how many NATs or other transition mechanisms the IPv4 half of the dual stack is provisioned through.
> 
Yes, but, given the nearly immediate runout of IPv4, I would say that doing so in a way that best
facilitates IPv6-only hosts being functional is very much worthy of consideration in this process.

Owen