On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 3:09 AM, Paul B. Henson <hen...@acm.org> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 07:30:48AM +0100, Alan Buxey wrote: > >> Care to elaborate on the reasons? > > Heh, there's a reason I said "variety" ;). Honestly, I'm like 90% systems > and 10% network, our network guys could probably better explain all of > the underlying thought process. My primary task on the deployment is > standing up the DHCPv6 servers and IPv6-enabling our operating systems > and applications. If you look at comment #101 on the issue thread, > that's actually from one of of network admins briefly discussing some of > the underlying rationale.
it seems as though the large concern is: "network gear wont' hand out resolver data" you'll have v6 and v4 right? dual-stack would let you still get dns services over v4 while providing v6 transport as necessary/available. there seem to be some other largely un-numbered concerns about 'router management' ... but I'd submit that there are quite a few dual-stack networks out there (campus and wide-area and consumer) and we're not seeing this sort of problems supposed. -chris