Ralph,
I use IPv6 in XP so I can confirm your suspicion on both counts.
IPv6-only is a non-starter for XP.
Suresh,
I understand your goals quite well, which is why I'm opposed to the
adoption of the draft. :) Since practically Day 1 of the IPv6 effort
there has been a movement to make SLAAC/RA a full-featured replacement
for DHCP, by hook or crook. Please note, I am not impugning _your_
motives, but I am opposed to your goal.
Doug
On 09/08/2010 09:17 AM, Ralph Droms wrote:
Nit: seems unlikely to me you will have any XP devices running IPv6-only; if my
understanding of the situation is correct, such a device requires manual
installation of the IPv6 stack and still requires IPv4 for DNS.
- Ralph
On Sep 8, 2010, at 5:36 PM 9/8/10, Suresh Krishnan wrote:
Hi Doug,
On 10-09-08 02:02 AM, Doug Barton wrote:
On 09/07/2010 06:38 AM, JOSHI, SHRINIVAS ASHOK (SHRINIVAS ASHOK) wrote:
5. Creating an alternative to DHCPv6 ?
One SLAAC is defined to do functionality similar to DHCP (including
per host prefixes/options) how long before options are added so SLAAC
becomes an alternative to DHCPv6 ?
This is the basis of my opposition to adopting the draft (expressed neatly
here, as well as by other authors in this thread).
As I said in my response to Shree, the goal is to provide support for
SLAAC-only IPv6 clients. It is not a practical option to require support for
stateful DHCPv6 for clients that are no longer supported (e.g. XP). I agree
that going forward, stateful DHCPv6 will be a solution for this problem.
Thanks
Suresh
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
