RE: Mac OS X 10.7, still no DHCPv6

["George Bonser" <gbonser () seven com>]

> From: Randy Bush 
> Sent: Monday, February 28, 2011 12:27 PM
> To: Joe Abley
> Cc: NANOG Operators' Group
> Subject: Re: Mac OS X 10.7, still no DHCPv6
>
> > It's hard to see v6-only networks as a viable, general-purpose
> > solution to anything in the foreseeable future. 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.
>
> facile but fallacious fanboyism
>
>   o if ipv6 can not operate as the only protocol, and we will be out
>     of ipv4 space and have to deploy 6-only networks, it damned well
>     better be able to stand on its own.
>
>   o if ipv6 can not stand on its own, then dual-stack is a joke that
>     will be very un-funny very shortly, as one partner in the marriage
>     is a dummy.
>
> randy

Dual stack isn't always the best approach.  For networks that pass a
large amount of traffic to a relatively small number of destinations,
NAT64/DNS64 on a native v6 platform might be a better migration
approach.  If 90% of your traffic is v6, it is probably less trouble to
use NAT64/DNS64 to reach that 10% than it is to dual-stack.  

Networks such as the sort described above would be expected to see the
majority of their traffic migrate very quickly to v6 once only a few
remote networks are v6 capable.  This is a case where the pain is
front-loaded.  The amount of NAT64/DNS64 required to support such a
topology is great at first, then quickly steps down as the destinations
exchanging the most traffic become v6 capable, and then gradually tails
off as the outliers catch up.

G