[ipv6hackers] "Stick to limited IPv6 deployments, businesses warned"

Owen DeLong owend at he.net
Thu Sep 6 06:26:59 CEST 2012

On Sep 5, 2012, at 20:22 , Jim Small <jim.small at cdw.com> wrote:

> Hi Tomas,
>>> 1)  Do you believe there is a compelling case for RDNSS/RFC 6106?  I
>> personally like it but when I have spoken to vendors they pointed out that
>> most things do or will support stateless DHCPv6 and they don't see any
>> reason to add RDNSS support.  Can you give me some strong cases I can take
>> back to vendors for RDNSS?  I want to emphasize that this is not an idle
>> promise - any strong case will go straight to the parties who can effect
>> change at the vendors.
>> I share your view. Personally I don't like SLAAC at all. However it is
>> very "explosive" topic where different people have very differed opinion
>> about that. Observing the current situation all important vendors (MS,
>> Apple) started supporting DHCPv6, so I expect that DHCPv6 will be a
>> dominant method of autoconfiguration.
> So we're pretty much writing off RDNSS?  That what it seems like to me, but just confirming.

That's essentially writing off SLAAC which is, IMHO, a pretty bad thing.


More information about the Ipv6hackers mailing list