On 13 June 2015 at 09:11, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Jun 2015, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
>
> Can someone explain to me how Android uses SLAAC to implement tethering?
>>
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7278
>
> --
I have not read it in detail, but correct me if I am wrong, that stuf
On Fri, 12 Jun 2015, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
Can someone explain to me how Android uses SLAAC to implement tethering?
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7278
--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se
On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 1:33 PM, Dave Taht wrote:
> The core bits of what I don't understand about the flamage is how hard
> would it be for an end-user - or corporate client - to just add any of
> these functionalities to this, cyanogenmod, etc.
Hi Dave,
Tough to say. The Feat implementation of
On 2015-06-12 16:58, Ray Soucy wrote:
Wouldn't the simple play here be for Android to just throw up a
message
saying "This network does not support tethering" if SLAAC isn't
enabled,
and to let users complain to local operators if that's something they
want? Google doesn't get blamed, operator
On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 10:51 AM, Todd Underwood wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 1:43 PM, wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 12 Jun 2015 10:33:55 -0700, Dave Taht said:
>> > The core bits of what I don't understand about the flamage is how hard
>> > would it be for an end-user - or corporate client - to jus
On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 1:43 PM, wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Jun 2015 10:33:55 -0700, Dave Taht said:
> > The core bits of what I don't understand about the flamage is how hard
> > would it be for an end-user - or corporate client - to just add any of
> > these functionalities to this, cyanogenmod, etc.
On Fri, 12 Jun 2015 10:33:55 -0700, Dave Taht said:
> The core bits of what I don't understand about the flamage is how hard
> would it be for an end-user - or corporate client - to just add any of
> these functionalities to this, cyanogenmod, etc.
What percent of Android users have even *heard* o
The thing about this is that I get the impression that there was violent
agreement that DHCPv6 with PD would be Good Thing.
I think that the disagreement is about single address assignments being
a Bad Thing or Good Thing.
For Android, it seems that if operators implemented the ability to fetch
I have completely lost track of the technical issues on this thread.
I would like DHCP-PD support for acquiring a prefix for tethering,
from both cellular, and from wifi, in android. A mobile (android is
also used in settop boxes and devices like that) and pretty standard
platform that I could put
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 7:42 PM, Laszlo Hanyecz wrote:
> DHCPv6 is a crutch that allows operators to simply implement IPv6
> with all the same hacks as IPv4 and continue to do address based
> access control, tracking, etc.
Hi Lazlo,
Who are you to tell me how I must or must not use this new tech
Personally my view is that DHCPv6-PD support would be much better for
tethering, but I don't get to tell Google how to do that just like they
don't get to tell me how to give out addresses. My only request would be
if you do implement DHCPv6-PD for tethering, please make it only request a
prefix w
Can someone explain to me how Android uses SLAAC to implement tethering?
SLAAC allows the Android device to have as many addresses it wants. But how
does that allow it to reshare those address to a tethered device? A
tethering device that might itself be running SLAAC or DHCPv6.
If the tethering
Once upon a time, Todd Underwood said:
> lorenzo already stated that the cost was in user satisfaction related to
> tethering and the business reason was the desire to not implement NAT in v6
> on android.
So, just to roll back for a second, I hadn't really thought about what
was being discussed
lorenzo already stated that the cost was in user satisfaction related to
tethering and the business reason was the desire to not implement NAT in v6
on android.
many people didn't like those reasons or think that they are less important
than their own reasons.
shockingly, everyone believes that t
On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 11:18 AM, James R Cutler
wrote:
> “please let me manage my business and don’t take away my tools just to
> satisfy your prejudices.”
There are probably several ways to interpret that in ways you hadn't
considered for this discussion, I can think of a few.
They are:
Ray Soucy has given us an nice summary. It goes along with “please let me
manage my business and don’t take away my tools just to satisfy your
prejudices.”
Selection of management policies and implementations is ALWAYS a local issue
(assuming consideration of legal necessities). Especially in t
The only thing I would add is that DHCPv6 is not just about "tracking"
clients. Yes there are ways to do so using SLAAC, but they are not pretty.
Giving too much weight to tracking being the reason for DHCPv6 is just as
bad as giving too much weight to tethering as the reason against it. It
skew
> > On the other hand, if it becomes common and acceptable to use DHCPv6 to
> > provide a single address only
>
> I encourage my competitor universities to design their networks that way. :)
I'd be fine with android doing DHCPv6 plus refusing to use v6 if only
one address is available. Covers the
On Fri, 12 Jun 2015 02:07:22 -, Laszlo Hanyecz said:
> > > university net nazis
> >
> > Did you really just write that?
> >
>
> As far as "net nazi", I meant it in the same sense as a BOFH. Someone who is
> intentionally degrading a user's experience by using technical means to block
> specif
On Thu, 11 Jun 2015 19:42:07 -0400, Laszlo Hanyecz
wrote:
It looks to me like Lorenzo wants the same thing as most everyone here,
It doesn't look like that from my chair. He doesn't want to implement
DHCPv6 (and has REFUSED to do so for YEARS now) because he cannot find
solutions for ever
On Jun 11, 2015, at 9:06 PM, Karl Auer wrote:
>> You don't get to just say "I'm not going to implement this because I don't
>> agree with it," which is what Google is doing in the case of Android.
>
> Actually, you DO get to just say that. Anyone can, but especially
> something as big as Google
On Thu, 2015-06-11 at 20:51 -0400, Ray Soucy wrote:
> DHCPv6 is a tool, just as SLAAC is a tool. IPv6 was designed to support
> both options because they both have valid use cases.
Yes, a thousand times yes.
> You don't get to just say "I'm not going to implement this because I don't
> agree wit
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 4:42 PM, Laszlo Hanyecz wrote:
> Lorzenzo is probably not going to post anymore because of this.
Oh, I imagine we'll all need to take a time-out after this thread;
I know it's got my back fur all riled up, too. :(
> It looks to me like Lorenzo wants the same thing as mos
"Your phone doesn't work with our network, so you should buy one that does"
vs
"Hey we can't connect, fix your network"
Kind of similar to the streaming video vs eyeball network thing.. blaming the
bad user experience on the other guy.
-Laszlo
On Jun 12, 2015, at 2:18 AM, Matthew Petach wrot
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 8:26 AM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> Ray,
>
> please do not construe my words on this thread as being Google's position
> on anything. These messages were sent from my personal email address, and I
> do not speak for my employer.
>
> Regards,
> Lorenzo
Ah, Lorenzo, Lorenzo..
On Jun 12, 2015, at 12:51 AM, Ray Soucy wrote:
> That's really not the case at all.
>
> You're just projecting your own views about not thinking DHCPv6 is valid and
> making yourself and Lorenzo out to be the some sort of victims of NANOG and
> the ...
>
DHCPv6 and Android are just collat
In message <2f1701d0a4aa$617b98f0$2472cad0$@acm.org>, "Paul B. Henson" writes:
> > From: Laszlo Hanyecz
> > Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 4:42 PM
> >
> > from the university net Nazis
>
> Wow, it must be nice to live in a fairyland utopia where there is no DMCA,
> no federal laws such as HEOA, an
Well, most systems implemented DHCPv6 support a long time ago. Despite
other efforts to have Google support DHCPv6 for Android, nothing has
happened. There is nothing wrong with using NANOG to call out a major
vendor for this, even if they are a significant sponsor.
Just because you don't agree
Yeh, we get it. Repeating yourself is not helpful. The horse is dead
Please move your android feature request to a forum more fit for your
request.
On Thursday, June 11, 2015, Paul B. Henson wrote:
> > From: Laszlo Hanyecz
> > Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 4:42 PM
> >
> > from the univers
> From: Laszlo Hanyecz
> Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 4:42 PM
>
> from the university net Nazis
Wow, it must be nice to live in a fairyland utopia where there is no DMCA,
no federal laws such as HEOA, and a wide variety of other things you clearly
know nothing about that require universities to b
That's really not the case at all.
You're just projecting your own views about not thinking DHCPv6 is valid
and making yourself and Lorenzo out to be the some sort of victims of NANOG
and the ...
> university net nazis
Did you really just write that?
What we're arguing for here is choice, the e
In message <9da9c5b8-e60c-4462-873a-ea5052128...@heliacal.net>, Laszlo Hanyecz
writes:
> Lorzenzo is probably not going to post anymore because of this.
>
> It looks to me like Lorenzo wants the same thing as most everyone here,
> aside from the university net nazis, and he's got some balls to co
Lorzenzo is probably not going to post anymore because of this.
It looks to me like Lorenzo wants the same thing as most everyone here, aside
from the university net nazis, and he's got some balls to come defend his
position against the angry old men of NANOG. Perhaps the approach of attacking
We have had IPv6 enabled on our campus network since 2008 (including
wireless). We started with SLAAC and did some experimenting with DHCPv6 PD
over wireless but haven’t implemented DHCPv6 as a production service yet.
I thought that one thing that might push us towards DHCPv6 was desk VoIP
I wrote:
> valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
>
>> It only "just works" if your upstream device doesn't check/care that
>> you're emitting multiple MAC addresses from the same device.
>
> What if a Wifi router checks that a device authenticated by a
> student's account uses only one IPv4, one IPv6 a
valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> It only "just works" if your upstream device doesn't check/care that
> you're emitting multiple MAC addresses from the same device.
What if a Wifi router checks that a device authenticated by a
student's account uses only one IPv4, one IPv6 and one MAC
addresses?
On 9/Jun/15 23:56, Owen DeLong wrote:
> At the end of the day, I see Androids refusal to implement DHCPv6 as about
> the same level of stupidity as Apple’s refusal to implement 464XLAT in iOS.
>
> Both companies need to pull their heads out of their asses.
Much like the router vendors fought, f
Doug Barton wrote:
> No, you're not. Some of us have been saying that requiring RA is a bad
> idea, and that adding features to it is a bad idea, for over 15 years now.
Need a DHCPv6 route option?
> Unfortunately the anti-DHCP crowd hasn't budged, no matter how many
> operators have told them
Where is Mr. Protocol? When we need him most?!
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
I like to think of it more like the command tent ;-)
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 9:40 PM, Todd Underwood wrote:
> Anyone who thinks Lorenzo hasn't been on the front lines of pushing for
> IPv6 adoption is pretty late to the party or confused about the state of
> affairs.
>
> T
>
> On Wed, Jun 10, 20
Anyone who thinks Lorenzo hasn't been on the front lines of pushing for
IPv6 adoption is pretty late to the party or confused about the state of
affairs.
T
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015, 21:30 Ray Soucy wrote:
> I agree that some of the rhetoric should be toned down (go out for a beer
> or something, gu
I agree that some of the rhetoric should be toned down (go out for a beer
or something, guys ... I did).
There is a difference between fiery debate with Lorenzo and a witch hunt,
and some of this is starting to sound a bit personal. I shouldn't have
worded things the way I did, I went for the che
No.
Given that Lorenzo was posting with absolute statements about Google's
approach, and with what they would do in the future in response to hypothetical
standards developments, these questions are completely valid.
On Jun 10, 2015 5:24 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
>
> On 06/10/2015 02:51 PM, Pa
On Wed, 10 Jun 2015 17:56:10 -0400, "George, Wes" said:
> WG] I made reference to it in a previous message, but since the question
> was repeated, I'll assume that was missed and repeat the answer. The
> hypervisor folks seem to have figured this out so that it "just works"
> without NAT, using vi
g@nanog.org>" mailto:nanog@nanog.org>>
Subject: Re: Android (lack of) support for DHCPv6
I saw your response, but creating a hypervisor-equivalent network stack inside
Android didn't seem particularly easy to me. This may be, however, because
I've mostly dealt with OVS-s
Let's call off the witch hunt.
Please.
I get it, you want a DHCPv6 client. "Star" the project or whatever you
think the right intake process is for an Android feature.
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 2:51 PM, Paul B. Henson wrote:
> > From: Lorenzo Colitti
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 8:27 AM
>
In-line.
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 3:10 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
> On 6/10/15 2:46 PM, Ted Hardie wrote:
>
>> But understanding whether what we're actually
>> looking for is "static" or "single" is a pretty key piece of the
>> requirements scoping, and it sounds like "static" is it, at least fro
From: Ted Hardie mailto:ted.i...@gmail.com>>
Date: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 at 6:09 PM
To: "George, Wes" mailto:wesley.geo...@twcable.com>>
Cc: Doug Barton mailto:do...@dougbarton.us>>,
"nanog@nanog.org<mailto:nanog@nanog.org>"
mailto:nanog@nanog.org&
On 06/10/2015 02:51 PM, Paul B. Henson wrote:
From: Lorenzo Colitti
Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 8:27 AM
please do not construe my words on this thread as being Google's position
on anything. These messages were sent from my personal email address, and I
do not speak for my employer.
Can we c
On 6/10/15 2:46 PM, Ted Hardie wrote:
That's fair enough, and some variability in what N is depending on
device is as a well. But understanding whether what we're actually
looking for is "static" or "single" is a pretty key piece of the
requirements scoping, and it sounds like "static" is it, a
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 2:56 PM, George, Wes
wrote:
>
> On 6/10/15, 5:27 PM, "Ted Hardie" wrote:
>
> >>... and this argument has been refuted by the word "bridging."
> >>
> >>
> >To repeat Valdis' question:
> >
> >And the router knows to send to the "front" address to reach the "back"
> >> ad
On 06/10/2015 02:36 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
It *could*, but Lorenzo actually does have a point when he talks about
not wanting to cripple future application development. I'd also like
to see a rough outline of an implementation before commenting further.
Meanwhile, DHCPv6 + PD solves all of L
On 6/10/15, 5:27 PM, "Ted Hardie" wrote:
>>... and this argument has been refuted by the word "bridging."
>>
>>
>To repeat Valdis' question:
>
>And the router knows to send to the "front" address to reach the "back"
>> address, how, exactly? Seems like somebody should invent a way to
>>assign
> From: Lorenzo Colitti
> Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 8:27 AM
>
> please do not construe my words on this thread as being Google's position
> on anything. These messages were sent from my personal email address, and I
> do not speak for my employer.
Can we construe your postings on the issue t
> From: Ray Soucy
> Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 6:06 AM
>
> As for thinking "long term" and "the future", we need devices to work
> within current models of IPv6 to accelerate _adoption_ of IPv6 _today_
> before we can get to that future you're talking about.
>
> Not supporting DHCPv6 ultimatel
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 2:36 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
>
>
>>
>
> The other option would, of course, be "bridging" plus IPv6 "NAT", and I
>> assume you see the issues there.
>>
>
> No, actually I don't. I realize that you and Lorenzo are part of the rabid
> NAT-hating crowd, but I'm not. I don't
> From: Lorenzo Colitti
> Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 5:22 AM
>
> It's certainly a possibility for both sides in this debate to say "my way
> or the highway", and wait and see what happens when operators start
> removing support for IPv4.
You are rather confused.
Only one side of this debate
In message
, Ray Soucy writes:
> The whole conversation is around 464XLAT on IPv6-only networks right?
> We're going to be dual-stack for a while IMHO, and by the time we can get
> away with IPv6 only for WiFi, 464 should no longer be relevant because
> we'll have widespread IPv6 adoption by then
On 6/10/15 2:27 PM, Ted Hardie wrote:
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 2:16 PM, Doug Barton mailto:do...@dougbarton.us>> wrote:
On 6/10/15 2:00 PM, Ted Hardie wrote:
Lorenzo has detailed why N=1 doesn't work for devices that need
to use xlat
... and it's been well demonstrate
> From: Lorenzo Colitti
> Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 5:07 AM
>
> getting rid of NAT. Today in IPv4, tethering just works, period.
[...]
> IPv4-only apps always work.
Wow. If your phone just "always works", you certainly lead a charmed life.
> A model where the device has to request resources
> From: Ray Soucy
> Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 4:36 AM
>
> In practice, your device will just not be supported.
[..]
> If your client is broken because of an incomplete implementation, I just
> won't give it an IPv6 address at all. I think a lot of others feel the
> same way.
[...]
> already
> From: Mikael Abrahamsson
> Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 12:05 AM
>
> You seem to fail to realise that you are not Lorenzos customer, his
> customer is the OEMs that build mobile phones, and their customers who buy
> Android phones.
And he fails to realize that the people who buy android phone
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 2:16 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
> On 6/10/15 2:00 PM, Ted Hardie wrote:
>
>> Lorenzo has detailed why N=1 doesn't work for devices that need to use
>> xlat
>>
>
> ... and it's been well demonstrated that this is a red herring argument
> since the provider has to configure xlat
> From: Lorenzo Colitti
> Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2015 11:33 PM
>
> value of N. I'd be happy to work with people on an Internet draft or other
[...]
> It's also possible for Android to support DHCPv6 PD. Again I'd be happy to
> work with people on a document that says that mobile devices should do
On 6/9/15 1:27 PM, Joel Maslak wrote:
Agreed - apparently the solution is to implement SLAAC + DNS advertisements
*AND* DHCPv6. Because you need SLAAC + DNS advertisements for Android, and
you need DHCPv6 for Windows.
Am I the only one that thinks this situation is stupid?
No, you're not. Som
On 6/10/15 8:15 AM, Ray Soucy wrote:
The statement that "Android would still not implement DHCPv6 NA, but it
would implement DHCPv6 PD." is troubling because you're not even willing to
entertain the idea for reasons that are rooted in idealism rather
than pragmatism.
I was going to respond on t
> From: Lorenzo Colitti
> Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2015 7:49 PM
>
> That sounds pretty stupid even for me, so probably something got lost in
> translation.
"Implementing stateful DHCPv6 would break planned use cases such as IPv6
tethering"
"And it's not possible to enable tethering"
"tethering
On 6/10/15 2:00 PM, Ted Hardie wrote:
Lorenzo has detailed why N=1 doesn't work for devices that need to use xlat
... and it's been well demonstrated that this is a red herring argument
since the provider has to configure xlat for it to have any chance of
working.
or which might want to te
On Wed, 10 Jun 2015 00:58:06 -0400, Lorenzo Colitti
wrote:
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 12:26 PM, Jon Bane wrote:
DHCPv6 - RFC3315 - Category: Standards Track
464XLAT - RFC6877 - Category: Informational
Ooo, that's fun, can I play too?
We aren't asking you to support BGP, or SNMP. We're DEMAND
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 11:51 AM, Matthew Huff wrote:
> +1
>
> One IP per device will almost most likely be the preference and
> implementation in corporate/enterprise deployments. Too much procedure,
> regulation and other roadblocks prevent any other solution.
>
> Authentication, Authorization,
Memory is cheap, ASICs and FPGAs are getting better all the time.
It might be a problem a few years from now for older hardware, but I
can't see it causing real issues long term.
Josh Reynolds
CIO, SPITwSPOTS
www.spitwspots.com
On 06/10/2015 12:42 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Lorenzo Colitti:
* Lorenzo Colitti:
> I think what I said is that supporting DHCPv6-only networks will eventually
> force OS manufacturers to implement IPv6 NAT. This is because there are
> many features inside a mobile OS that require multiple IP addresses.
On many networks, there will be fairly tight limits on
* Dave Taht
> I am told that well over 50% of all android development comes from
> volunteer developers so rather than kvetching about this it seems
> plausible for an outside effort to get the needed features for
> tethering and using dhcpv6-pd into it. If someone wanted to do the
> work.
https:
* Lorenzo Colitti
> > On the other hand, there exist applications *today* that do require
> > DHCPv6. One such example would be MAP, which IMHO is superior to
> > 464XLAT both for the network operator (statlessness ftw) as well as
> > for the end user (unsolicited inbound packets work, no NAT trav
+1
One IP per device will almost most likely be the preference and implementation
in corporate/enterprise deployments. Too much procedure, regulation and other
roadblocks prevent any other solution.
Authentication, Authorization, Accounting, ACLS, NMS, IDS, IP management,
custom software, and
Ray Soucy wrote:
> I don't really feel I was trying to take things out of context, but the full
> quote
> would be:
>
> "If there were consensus that delegating a prefix of sufficient size via
> DHCPv6 PD of a sufficient size is an acceptable substitute for stateful
> IPv6 addressing in the envir
I've already written systems to do this kind of thing, but the logging
requirements quickly go through the roof for a non-trivial network;
especially in the case of temporary addressing now default on many
systems. That isn't so much the issue as operational consistency and
supportability.
The re
From: Lorenzo Colitti mailto:lore...@colitti.com>>
Date: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 at 11:21 AM
To: "George, Wes" mailto:wesley.geo...@twcable.com>>
Cc: NANOG mailto:nanog@nanog.org>>
Subject: Re: Android (lack of) support for DHCPv6
"I don't think it's a
>
> It's not the *only* option. There are large networks - O(100k) IPv6 nodes -
> that do ND monitoring for accountability, and it does work for them. Many
> devices support this via syslog, even. As you can imagine, my Android device
> gets IPv6 at work, even though it doesn't support DHCPv6.
I don't really feel I was trying to take things out of context, but the
full quote would be:
"If there were consensus that delegating a prefix of sufficient size via
DHCPv6 PD of a sufficient size is an acceptable substitute for stateful
IPv6 addressing in the environments that currently insist on
On Wed, 2015-06-10 at 09:49 -0700, Scott Whyte wrote:
> False dichotomies suck.
There are only two kinds of dichotomy... those that suck and those that
do not. This one sucks.
Regards, K.
--
~~~
Karl Auer (ka...@biplane.com.au
> On Jun 10, 2015, at 11:36 AM, Jeff McAdams wrote:
>
> There is no other rational way to interpret your statement than to be a
> statement of Google's position.
As someone who posts from a personal email but my management has told me that
I’m well identifiable as who I work for, I’m sympathe
On 6/10/15 08:36, Jeff McAdams wrote:
There is no
other rational way to interpret your statement than to be a statement
of Google's position.
False dichotomies suck.
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 8:35 AM, Tore Anderson wrote:
> * Lorenzo Colitti
>
>> Tethering is just one example that we know about today.
In android's case I am perpetually bemused by the fact they use
dnsmasq for tethered dhcp, and dnsmasq long ago added support for
doing smarter things with slaac,
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 12:36 AM, Jeff McAdams wrote:
> Then you need to be far more careful about what you say. When you said
> "Android would still not support..." you, very clearly, made a statement of
> product direction for a Google product.
Did you intentionally leave the "in that scenari
Then you need to be far more careful about what you say. When you said "Android
would still not support..." you, very clearly, made a statement of product
direction for a Google product. There is no other rational way to interpret
your statement than to be a statement of Google's position.
--
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 12:35 AM, Tore Anderson wrote:
> > And that's not counting future applications that can take
> > advantage of multiple IP addresses that we haven't thought of yet, and
> that
> > we will have if we get stuck with
> >
> there-are-more-IPv6-addresses-in-this-subnet-than-grai
Ray Soucy wrote:
>
> Respectfully disagree on all points.
>
> The statement that "Android would still not implement DHCPv6 NA, but it would
> implement DHCPv6 PD." is troubling because you're not even willing to
> entertain the idea for reasons that are rooted in idealism rather than
> pragmatis
On 10 June 2015 at 15:53, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
>
> Well, then you're not doing what most people do when they do DHCPv6-PD,
> you're using something else. This is the first time I have heard of anyone
> doing what you describe.
>
I mentioned because the Android guy seems to be guilty of know
* Lorenzo Colitti
> Tethering is just one example that we know about today. Another example is
> 464xlat.
You can't do 464XLAT without the network operator's help anyway (unless
you/Google is planning on hosting a public NAT64 service?). If the
network operator actively wants 464XLAT to be used,
Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> It's not the *only* option. There are large networks - O(100k) IPv6 nodes -
> that do ND monitoring for accountability, and it does work for them. Many
> devices support this via syslog, even. As you can imagine, my Android
> device gets IPv6 at work, even though it doesn'
Ray,
please do not construe my words on this thread as being Google's position
on anything. These messages were sent from my personal email address, and I
do not speak for my employer.
Regards,
Lorenzo
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 12:15 AM, Ray Soucy wrote:
> Respectfully disagree on all points.
>
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 10:25 PM, George, Wes
wrote:
> The reality is that this whole argument is needlessly conflating multiple
> things in a way that isn't helpful, so I'm going to try to break this into
> pieces in order to make forward progress and try to get us away from what
> is devolving
Respectfully disagree on all points.
The statement that "Android would still not implement DHCPv6 NA, but it
would implement DHCPv6 PD." is troubling because you're not even willing to
entertain the idea for reasons that are rooted in idealism rather
than pragmatism.
Very disappointing to see tha
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 10:06 PM, Ray Soucy wrote:
> Actually we do support DHCPv6-PD, but Android doesn't even support DHCPv6
> let alone PD, so that's the discussion here, isn't it?
>
It is possible to implement DHCPv6 without implementing stateful address
assignment.
If there were consensus
On Wed, 10 Jun 2015, George, Wes wrote:
On 6/10/15, 9:13 AM, "Baldur Norddahl" wrote:
What standard exactly requires my router to be able to snoop a DHCP-PD to
create routes dynamically? That was left out and one solution is the one
we
use.
WG] We use this in cable-land, so it's definitely
On 6/10/15, 9:13 AM, "Baldur Norddahl" wrote:
>What standard exactly requires my router to be able to snoop a DHCP-PD to
>create routes dynamically? That was left out and one solution is the one
>we
>use.
WG] We use this in cable-land, so it's definitely documented in the DOCSIS
standards. Not
The whole conversation is around 464XLAT on IPv6-only networks right?
We're going to be dual-stack for a while IMHO, and by the time we can get
away with IPv6 only for WiFi, 464 should no longer be relevant because
we'll have widespread IPv6 adoption by then.
Carriers can do IPv6 only because they
On Wed, 10 Jun 2015, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
I need the GUA to have a stable and predictable next hop for my static
route of the /48 prefix delegation.
What standard exactly requires my router to be able to snoop a DHCP-PD to
create routes dynamically? That was left out and one solution is the o
1 - 100 of 182 matches
Mail list logo
