On 20 June 2016 at 20:39, Willy MANGA wrote:
> Do you know why these two has refused to implement them ?
Mostly purist perspective that says "use RAs for everything"
___
AfrIPv6-Discuss mailing list
AfrIPv6-Discuss@afrinic.net
As a data point, in our network we:
- do run both SLAAC and DHCPv6
- we send RDNSS info over SLAAC
- we do provide both IPv4 and IPv6 DNSes via DHCP (v4 and v6 respectively)
Now it’s less so as we’ve been upgrading machines, but we used to get a
significant amount of queries over v4 coming
> On 20 Jun 2016, at 9:59 PM, Mukom Akong T. wrote:
>
> Most of the complaints about deploying IPv6 to users have been around needing
> to do both SLAAC and DHCPv6 in a normal network. Reasons being
>
> - Microsoft has refused to implement RFC 6106 (the ability to
Most of the complaints about deploying IPv6 to users have been around
needing to do both SLAAC and DHCPv6 in a normal network. Reasons being
- Microsoft has refused to implement RFC 6106 (the ability to provision DNS
information using RAs) in its Operating Systems
- Google has refused to