On Oct 22, 2009, at 4:27 PM, Joe Maimon wrote:
Ray Soucy wrote:
Others may have their specific requests from vendors, but here are
mine:
1. Include DHCPv6 client functionality as part of any IPv6
implementation.
2. Support RA-gaurd and DHCPv6 snooping in L2 network infrastructure.
I can agree with that.
I would also add that there is plenty of work that can be done to
DHCP, such as adding full route support, multiple gateways with
preference and even transitioning from a binary only protocol.
A lot of the frustration seems to come from Windows ICS acting as an
IPv6 router. I think everyone here has been after Microsoft to
either
remove ICS or make it more difficult to enable at one point or
another. While a rogue RA can come from anywhere, Windows is usually
the guilty party. I would argue that since NAT is not a component of
IPv6,
NAT wasnt a component of IPv4 until it was already had widespread
adoption. I remain completely unconvinced that people will not
continue to perceive value in PAT6 between their private and their
public subnets.
People may perceive value, but, I truly hope that they won't be able
to obtain the "functionality". It's just a very bad idea that does
terrible things to the network. NAT/PAT was a necessary evil in IPv4
to extend the lifetime of the addressing until IPv6 could be almost
ready. It should be allowed to die with IPv4.
And of course, different forms of NAT are almost certainly required
to try to make ipv4 and ipv6 interoperate for as long as people need
it to.
Sort of, but, yeah. That's OK. Unfortunate, but, OK.
I actually think that now that we have a transfer market policy, IPv4
will probably die much faster than it would have otherwise.
Owen
