[c-nsp] IPV6 in general was Re: Large networks

[TJ]

While I agree the dearth of RA/DNS support is annoying, in all reality the
environments that we are talking about aren't "v6 only".
Atleast, the environments I work in, that is.
They still have v4 (even if RFC19181/NATed), and can rely on DHCP(v4) to get
DNS (and other) information and SLAAC can and does work for v6 addressing.

Is this ideal?  Of course not, but I'd rather it not be mis-represented as
totally dysfunctional.
Please, push vendors to get RA+DNS (RFC5006) supported on router and host
platforms.


/TJ


>-----Original Message-----
>From: cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp-
>bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Nick Hilliard
>Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2009 7:24 AM
>To: Gert Doering
>Cc: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net; sthaug at nethelp.no; alex at digriz.org.uk
>Subject: Re: [c-nsp] IPV6 in general was Re: Large networks
>
>On 27/08/2009 11:41, Gert Doering wrote:
>> SLAAC works *very* well for the things it was made for: zero-conf
>> environments, with no dedicated DHCP server - as in "home networks" or
>> "office networks".
>
>No it doesn't.  After 13 years of ipv6 development, I still can't plug my
>mac or my windows box into an ipv6 only network and actually expect it to
>work, because RA/RDNSS client support is so hit and miss.
>
>Nick