On Feb 27, 2011, at 3:41 PM, Tore Anderson wrote: > * Owen DeLong > >> On Feb 27, 2011, at 4:21 AM, Randy Bush wrote: >> >>> NOC: are you running a macintosh? >>> User: yes, how did you guess? >>> NOC: because it is broken. get vista. >> >> While I'm as big a fan of IPv6 as anybody, I think in a comparison of >> relative brokenness, Mac comes out quite favorably compared to >> Vista in spite of their DHCPv6 deficiencies. > > Absolutely not. Mac OS X does not do proper source address selection > according to RFC 3484. That makes it do things like preferring the use > of link-local IPv6 addresses when connecting to global dual-stacked > destinations, which of course won't work - as a result a 75 second long > timeout is incurred for every single outgoing TCP connection. Versions > earlier than 10.6.5, still in use by a considerable amount of users, > will also prefer the use of 6to4 to IPv4, again something which is > causing lots of brokenness. (Windows ICS is responsible for causing lots > of OS X hosts to have 6to4 addresses in the first place, though.) > > OS X also has a bug that will make it interpret a router lifetime of 0 > in a RA as infinite, causing more troubles when found behind IPv6 CE > routers using ULAs in compliance with I-D.ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router, > one example of which is the AVM FritzBox as far as I understand. > You're talking about IPv6-specific brokenness. I'm talking about overall OS brokenness.
On IPv6, yes, Micr0$0ft actually (finally) got something mostly right. On just about everything else... Windows... Nah, can't say I miss it at all. Owen