[ipv6hackers] "Stick to limited IPv6 deployments, businesses warned"
jim.small at cdw.com
Thu Sep 6 07:01:26 CEST 2012
> >>> 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
> >> 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.
SLAAC is a done deal. The question is, will network and OS vendors extend their SLAAC implementations to support RDNSS. From what I can see, it seems like the answer is no. RDNSS is cool, it's nice for labs and other setup types, and it's a published standard. However, it's pretty much worthless if routers and mainstream O/S (e.g. Microsoft/Apple) don't support it. When inquiring about support I found some enthusiasm from developers but they couldn't come up with a business case to justify implementation. At first I thought there was a case, but the more I dig I'm sorry to say that it doesn't seem like there is one or at least not a strong case.
However, I would be very grateful to be proven wrong.
More information about the Ipv6hackers