Re: [v6ops] Please review the No IPv4 draft

[Nick Hilliard <[e-mail]>]

On 29/04/2014 12:57, Ted Lemon wrote:
> For you it seems to boil down to
> "because virtualization software from VMware and Cisco has serious
> limitations with respect to IPv6." 

No.  I was just clarifying a particular point about a particular question
you had about certain forms of ipv6 support on a specific line of cisco kit
which I happen to be familiar with.

If you do a stack unwind of this conversation:

- it is currently not possible to run large scale ipv6 shared L2 domains on
specific (albeit market leader) hypervisor platforms, which is a subset of
a much bigger problem:

 - dhcpv6 guard / ra guard support is not supported on plenty of types of
kit from a wide variety of vendors (link provided to show the scale of this
problem), which means that:

  - from an operational point of view, the poor support for dhcpv6/ra guard
is a general reason why, given the choice between using either (dhcpv4) or
(dhcpv6 + ra) for ending up with the same outcome, it would be
operationally more attractive to use dhcpv4,

   - which is only one of many reasons that a bunch of people have put
forward to suggest that dhcpv4 might be a better choice as a transport
mechanism for delivering the bits specified in draft-ietf-sunset4-noipv4,

    - assuming that the basic idea of having a signal to shut down ipv4
services as specified in the draft is a sensible idea in the first place.

Nick