With copies out to developers we now have confirmation that Apple
still hasn't included DHCPv6 in the next release of OS X.
With copies out to developers we now have confirmation that Apple
still hasn't included DHCPv6 in the next release of OS X.
what is it about ipv6 which attracts religious nuts?
randy
With copies out to developers we now have confirmation that Apple
still hasn't included DHCPv6 in the next release of OS X.what is it about ipv6 which attracts religious nuts?
you sure it's not macos (says joel from a v6 enabled mac).
On a more serious note, I can on my Ubuntu machine just "apt-get install wide-dhcpv6-client" and I get dhcpv6, it'll properly put stuff in resolv.conf for dns-over-ipv6 transport, even though the connection manager knows nothing about it, at least dual stack works properly.
Can one do the equivalent easy addition to OSX?
You're going to have to perform stateless autconfiguration in ipv6 and
provide an ipv4 nameserver at the very minimum for a long time, if you
don't do it for macos you'll have to do it for windows xp...
You can, the actual integration issue is that network mangler (on
ubuntu/fedora etal) and the osX airport connection manager will give up
on a subnet on which they can't obtain an ipv4 address in prefernce to
one where they can... this can also be worked around but it makes
v6-only operation (Assuming that were desired, or even a good idea at
this point) something that the majority of the users wouldn't be able to
achive without the default behavior changing.
Joel Jaeggli (joelja) writes:
You're going to have to perform stateless autconfiguration in ipv6 and
provide an ipv4 nameserver at the very minimum for a long time, if you
don't do it for macos you'll have to do it for windows xp...
One of those operating systems is 10 years old and unmaintained...
Which one has more machines in production?
I'm not that interested in v6 only, I'm after requiring DHCPv6 and disallowing SLAAC, which clients can use IPv6 then?
List afaik:
Can:
Windows Vista/Win7 (default)
Linux (with non-default software)
*BSD (with non-default software)
Probably:
OSX (with non-default software)
Can't:
Windows XP
Don't know:
Symbian
Android
Apple iOS
If you're talking about XP, I still get patches from Microsoft, and I've heard reliable reports that they plan to keep supporting it until 2014. If that's true you can expect that the actual time when it becomes a non-issue will be at least 2020.
Doug
With copies out to developers we now have confirmation that Apple
still hasn't included DHCPv6 in the next release of OS X.what is it about ipv6 which attracts religious nuts?
you sure it's not macos (says joel from a v6 enabled mac).
On a more serious note, I can on my Ubuntu machine just "apt-get install
wide-dhcpv6-client" and I get dhcpv6, it'll properly put stuff in
resolv.conf for dns-over-ipv6 transport, even though the connection
manager knows nothing about it, at least dual stack works properly.Can one do the equivalent easy addition to OSX?
You can, the actual integration issue is that network mangler (on
ubuntu/fedora etal) and the osX airport connection manager will give up
on a subnet on which they can't obtain an ipv4 address in prefernce to
one where they can... this can also be worked around but it makes
v6-only operation (Assuming that were desired, or even a good idea at
this point) something that the majority of the users wouldn't be able to
achive without the default behavior changing.I'm not that interested in v6 only, I'm after requiring DHCPv6 and
disallowing SLAAC, which clients can use IPv6 then?List afaik:
Can:
Windows Vista/Win7 (default)
Linux (with non-default software)
*BSD (with non-default software)Probably:
OSX (with non-default software)
Can't:
Windows XP
also can't query an ipv6 nameserver, meaning it has to obtain one via ipv4.
Don't know:
Symbian
has it
Android
does not have it per the currently open ticket/rfe.
* Mikael Abrahamsson
You can, the actual integration issue is that network mangler (on
ubuntu/fedora etal) and the osX airport connection manager will give up
on a subnet on which they can't obtain an ipv4 address in prefernce to
one where they can... this can also be worked around but it makes
v6-only operation (Assuming that were desired, or even a good idea at
this point) something that the majority of the users wouldn't be able to
achive without the default behavior changing.I'm not that interested in v6 only, I'm after requiring DHCPv6 and
disallowing SLAAC, which clients can use IPv6 then?List afaik:
Can:
Windows Vista/Win7 (default)
Linux (with non-default software)
*BSD (with non-default software)
Actually, with Linux, you do not need any non-default software. For
quite some time now, the GNOME NetworkManager have supported most IPv6
flavours:
* Static addressing,
* SLAAC (including the RDNSS option),
* Information-only DHCPv6,
* Stateful DHCPv6, and
* Any combination of the above.
The problem is only that IPv6 support is not enabled in the default
connection profile. In the default case, the kernel will on its own do
SLAAC, but you won't get any IPv6 resolvers used, nor will it be able to
connect to a IPv6-only network, due to the fact that NetworkManager will
shut down the interface if it do not get any IPv4 connectivity (at least
on wireless connections).
See: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=538499
Best regards,
The Dibbler DHCPv6 client(non-standard software) works on XP (I think).
Not sure about disallowing SLAAC.
Regards, K.
You're going to have to perform stateless autconfiguration in ipv6 and
provide an ipv4 nameserver at the very minimum for a long time
apple is gonna look very very st00pid on world ipv6 day. and a bunch of
folk are considering not turning things off after that day.
randy
You're going to have to perform stateless autconfiguration in ipv6
and provide an ipv4 nameserver at the very minimum for a long timeapple is gonna look very very st00pid on world ipv6 day. and a bunch
of folk are considering not turning things off after that day.
on second thought, guess where the support calls are gonna go. our
customer support lines, because we deliver zipless ipv6.
NOC: are you running a macintosh?
User: yes, how did you guess?
NOC: because it is broken. get vista.
randy
Mikael,
try:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/wide-dhcpv6/
http://wouter.horre.be/doc/stateless-dhcpv6-on-mac-os-x
or
There are others out there. I prefer wide for now. Works on 10.6. Haven't tried it on 10.5.
Tom
Now why would you say that, Randy? My home is dual stacked with a IPv6 tunnel to HE at my router. All off the shelf. No special config. All Apple. So whats the beef?
Tom
SLAAC is fine (even great) for small environments. For a lot of
enterprise (or in our case, academic) networks you really want the
central control of what addresses hosts get.
Saw some mention of being unsure that it was possible to disable
SLAAC. Every OS I've tested so far respects the A flag (which
signals whether a prefix can be used for SLAAC or not) of an RA, so of
course you can disable SLAAC (right from the prefix you advertise).
Apple has said before that they don't want to use DHCPv6 because IPv6
should be "easy". I'm not really sure what about DHCPv6 is difficult.
Mac OS X 10.7 does support RDNSS (RFC 5001) so it is able to get DNS
server information in an IPv6-only environment. Of course nobody else
has implemented that yet, making Apple a "special case" host once
again (I don't even think Cisco supports the option in their T series
yet).
Once again, SLAAC and RDNSS is great for quick, small, plug-and-play
networks, and maybe even the opposite end: very very large (mobile)
networks.
But DHCPv6 is a powerful tool and one that shouldn't be thrown out.
With SLAAC, as soon as you enable it every host on a network starts
talking IPv6, by disabling SLAAC and using DHCPv6, you can selectively
respond to hosts and do a phased deployment, enabling IPv6 on a
per-host basis.
Even though we have good native IPv6 available, we've adopted a DHCPv6
only deployment model. It works great for Windows and Linux systems,
and even Android devices (I believe the iPhone even supports DHCPv6),
really too bad that OS X doesn't support it because on our network it
means they won't be getting IPv6 anytime soon.
NetworkManager on Fedora fully supports IPv6 now, including DHCPv6.
You can easily configure it to require an IPv4 address or an IPv6
address or both to consider the connection successfull.
Does anybody have anything neat to keep logs of what host gets what ipv6 address in an SLAAC environment?
This is often required for legislation compliance. DHCP does this well.