Re: V6 still not supported

[Owen DeLong via NANOG <nanog () nanog org>]

> On Mar 24, 2022, at 14:49 , Michael Thomas <mike () mtcc com> wrote:
>
>
> On 3/24/22 2:13 PM, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:
> > > On Mar 24, 2022, at 02:04 , Vasilenko Eduard via NANOG <nanog () nanog org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi all,
> > > > From 10k meters: IPv6 is different from IPv4 only by:
> > > - extension headers
> > > - SLAAC instead of DHCP
> > > Everything else is minor.
> > There’s no such thing as SLAAC instead of DHCP… There’s SLACC in addition to DHCP and operators
> > are free to choose the solution that best fits their network.
> >
> > I suppose the argument could be made that Android is SLAAC instead of DHCP, but I don’t buy that as a
> > complete showstopper these days. I do wish Lorenzo and Google would pull their collective crania out of
> > their hind quarters on this issue, but my vote is to treat Android as damage and route around it.
>
> If you have SLAAC and DHCP4 isn't that good enough? Is there a DHCP4 option for v6 DNS addresses too?

Why would you need that? It doesn’t make sense to provide v6 DNS server information over a v4 protocol.

SLAAC (RFC6106) can already provide RDNSS information (Resolving DNS Server) in the RAs.
SLAAC and/or DHCPv6 are completely separate from DHCPv4. There’s no overlap and there shouldn’t be any.

> Mike, not that I disagree about the silliness of not implementing DHCP6

People who support Lorenzo’s religion are relatively few and far between in the operational community.

Owen