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. > 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. > 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. Joe
