
Mac OS X 10.7, still no DHCPv6 - pieter
http://seclists.org/nanog/2011/Feb/1906
======
wmf
The issue here is that there are two different ways to assign addresses in
IPv6: SLAAC and DHCPv6. Apple only wants to support SLAAC; they think it's a
waste of their time to have two different protocols to do the same thing.
Unfortunately, a lot of ISPs want to only support DHCPv6, because it (easily)
supports an audit trail and SLAAC doesn't.

I predict that things will turn out fine because people will converge on
speaking SLAAC between OS X and the router and DHCPv6-PD between the router
and the ISP. But you _have_ to have a router.

~~~
pieter
Apparently OS X now supports supplying DNS servers through SLAAC. Previously
this wasn't supported, so you'd still need a DHCP(v4) server to fully support
a client.

~~~
signa11
> Apparently OS X now supports supplying DNS servers through SLAAC

i thought this was done via router-advertisements only. slaac is used to
configure v6 host addresses, and once that is done, other network parameters
e.g. rdnss etc. can be obtained either via RA or DHCPv6 (the 'O' flag in RA
messages)

------
danieldk
To Apple's credit, they are one of the few vendors of consumer-grade routers
who made it trivial to set up IPv6 (Airport Extreme/Express), including
tunneling.

~~~
ronaldj
Also to their credit, Lion hasn't even been released yet.

------
iuguy
Personally I love the first response from
<http://seclists.org/nanog/2011/Feb/1907>

    
    
        what is it about ipv6 which attracts religious nuts?

~~~
wnoise
What do you love about this response? What actual value does it convey besides
snideness toward people that actually care about what they work on?

~~~
iuguy
On what basis should Apple be forced to provide a DHCPv6 client as part of
their OS? They have 10% of the market, and the number of IPv6 users I imagine
is going to be a niche within their niche.

I appreciate that DHCPv6 support may be useful for some apple customers, but
in the grand scheme of things it's probably in a minority, perhaps best served
by the app store.

I also like the idea of references to 'religious nuts' being tied to apple
users, not all but specifically of the fanboy type.

In short, I find the statement poetic. The value it adds is humour. You might
not agree as humour is subjective, but it works for me.

~~~
drdaeman
Sorry, but are you saying "almost nobody needs IPv6, so why care"?

That's why we still can't have nice things.

~~~
iuguy
No, on the contrary. What I'm saying is that IPv6 doesn't have enough
traction, there's a finite number of developers and there are features that
will be used by more people that should take more priority.

To put it another way, a native IPv6 client isn't necessarily as innovative as
some of the other pending features. Not having DHCPv6 native isn't the end of
the world and is a minor annoyance for a few. Putting a team on implementing
DHCPv6 for a small subset of users takes people away from things like
bugfixes. DHCPv6 is not trivial.

If Apple found a feature that relied upon IPv6 then I imagine a DHCPv6 client
would be a priority. As it is, in the meantime you'll have to settle for
things like <http://klub.com.pl/dhcpv6/> \- which at least works on leopard
but you'll have to compile it yourself and it's not complete.

For some info on what is already possible with IPv6 on OSX take a look here:
<http://ipv6int.net/systems/mac_os_x-ipv6.html>

~~~
drdaeman
Sorry for misunderstanding, now I see. Thanks for the explaination!

------
sigzero
They don't have to yet. Really, IPv6 is not going to be an issue this year at
all. That ends up just being a patch Apple can come up with later. I don't see
the big deal here.

~~~
sgt
Right. The Apple developers have been working very hard on 10.7, and it's kind
of sad to see a story focusing on some vague subject (which, as you say, can
be applied as a patch anytime later when it becomes more relevant) that is
lacking. In my opinion, it's better to offer constructive criticism on the new
stuff that they've been working on for this release.

------
fleitz
I thought IP assignment was built into IPv6?

~~~
jrockway
Stateless autoconfig is, but stateless is bad for ISPs and network
administrators because it means anyone will be able to get an IP just by
plugging their machine into the network. With only 3.40282367 × 10^38 IPs
available, you can see why they would want to ration them.

~~~
die_sekte
At current population growth, we will run out of addresses—if we give every
human one IPv6 address—in only ~6000 years, or—if everybody should get 1000
addresses, for all those internet-enabled toasters and such—in ~5500 years.
Obviously we already need to plan ahead and carrier-NAT IPv6.

------
zitterbewegung
For those who don't know what DHCP v6 is it is the ipv6 version of DHCP. See
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DHCPv6> for more information.

------
anywho
I still care more about ZFS :/

