From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Apr 24 17:13:23 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C8ED1065686 for ; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 17:13:23 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from sthaug@nethelp.no) Received: from bizet.nethelp.no (bizet.nethelp.no [195.1.209.33]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 812BA8FC15 for ; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 17:13:18 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from sthaug@nethelp.no) Received: (qmail 56339 invoked from network); 24 Apr 2009 17:13:17 -0000 Received: from bizet.nethelp.no (HELO localhost) (195.1.209.33) by bizet.nethelp.no with SMTP; 24 Apr 2009 17:13:17 -0000 Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 19:13:17 +0200 (CEST) Message-Id: <20090424.191317.112607500.sthaug@nethelp.no> To: bob@veznat.com From: sthaug@nethelp.no In-Reply-To: References: <49F1128A.3080501@comcast.net> <49F1E2E7.5010703@lancaster.ac.uk> X-Mailer: Mew version 3.3 on Emacs 21.3 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org, m.jakeman@lancaster.ac.uk, nslay@comcast.net Subject: Re: IPv6 Ideas X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 17:13:23 -0000 > To my knowledge this wasn't around when the Kame guys were working on this > stuff. I don't think a lot of time has been spent updating the v6 support > applications since then and that's why we don't have this feature. > > This isn't a big deal in dual-stack networks because the clients just do DNS > over v4 with whatever the DHCP server gave. In a pure-v6 world... In > hindsight it's an obvious oversight that it wasn't included in the first > place. Not necessarily just oversight, also politics. IPv6 RA can't give you DNS info (without the addition you mentioned), and DHCPv6 can't give you a default route. Both pretty bad, actually. It looks like we may get a default route option for DHCPv6 now, but there's still a lot of resistance against it. Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug@nethelp.no