> On 21 Jun 2016, at 2:33 PM, Mukom Akong T. wrote:
> But I think we can all agree that it's better for everyone if all client OSs
> can support all options. Right now, we have allies within one of these guys
> who need our help to ensure we can have those options ...
> On 20 Jun 2016, at 10:32 PM, Carlos M. Martinez wrote:
>
> 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
On 20/Jun/16 20:39, Willy MANGA wrote:
> Do you know why these two has refused to implement them ?
For the Android issue, this was discussed in extremely great length at:
http://lists.cluenet.de/pipermail/ipv6-ops/2016-April/010859.html
Mark.
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