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 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? > > 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. Owen
