[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
IPv6 Confusion
- Subject: IPv6 Confusion
- From: nanog at 85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org (Mark Smith)
- Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 07:02:03 +1030
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
- References: <6CDE22DE80A63A4DACF4FE2C916519A53F022F784D@BLV11EXVS01.corp.dm.local> <[email protected]> <6CDE22DE80A63A4DACF4FE2C916519A53F022F788E@BLV11EXVS01.corp.dm.local> <050701c99135$df0f0ed0$9d2d2c70$@net> <[email protected]>
Hi,
On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 11:48:49 -0800
Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>
> On Feb 17, 2009, at 11:28 AM, Tony Hain wrote:
>
> > While people frequently claim that auto-config is optional, there are
> > implementations (including OS-X) that don't support anything else at
> > this
> > point. The basic message is that you should not assume that the host
> > implementations will conform to what the network operator would
> > prefer, and
> > you need to test.
>
> I can configure OS-X statically, so, that simply isn't true.
>
> What is true is that there are many implementations which do not (yet)
> support DHCPv6. That is not the same as "don't support anything
> else".
>
Here are a couple of implementations of DHCPv6, including one that also
works under Windows. I played with one of them on my Linux boxes a
while back (I can't remember exactly which one), and it just worked:
https://fedorahosted.org/dhcpv6/
http://klub.com.pl/dhcpv6/
Regards,
Mark.