IPv6 Deployment for the LAN

[owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)]

On Oct 22, 2009, at 4:27 PM, Joe Maimon wrote:

>
>
> Ray Soucy wrote:
>
>
>> Others may have their specific requests from vendors, but here are  
>> mine:
>> 1. Include DHCPv6 client functionality as part of any IPv6  
>> implementation.
>> 2. Support RA-gaurd and DHCPv6 snooping in L2 network infrastructure.
>
> I can agree with that.
>
> I would also add that there is plenty of work that can be done to  
> DHCP, such as adding full route support, multiple gateways with  
> preference and even transitioning from a binary only protocol.
>
>> A lot of the frustration seems to come from Windows ICS acting as an
>> IPv6 router.  I think everyone here has been after Microsoft to  
>> either
>> remove ICS or make it more difficult to enable at one point or
>> another.  While a rogue RA can come from anywhere, Windows is usually
>> the guilty party.  I would argue that since NAT is not a component of
>> IPv6,
>
> NAT wasnt a component of IPv4 until it was already had widespread  
> adoption. I remain completely unconvinced that people will not  
> continue to perceive value in PAT6 between their private and their  
> public subnets.
>
People may perceive value, but, I truly hope that they won't be able  
to obtain the "functionality".  It's just a very bad idea that does  
terrible things to the network. NAT/PAT was a necessary evil in IPv4  
to extend the lifetime of the addressing until IPv6 could be almost  
ready. It should be allowed to die with IPv4.

> And of course, different forms of NAT are almost certainly required  
> to try to make ipv4 and ipv6 interoperate for as long as people need  
> it to.
>
Sort of, but, yeah.  That's OK.  Unfortunate, but, OK.

I actually think that now that we have a transfer market policy, IPv4  
will probably die much faster than it would have otherwise.

Owen