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 13 June 2015 at 09:11, Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se 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,
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
specifically
On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 1:33 PM, Dave Taht dave.t...@gmail.com 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
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, operators
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
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
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
skews
On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 11:18 AM, James R Cutler
james.cut...@consultant.com 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
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
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
Once upon a time, Todd Underwood toddun...@gmail.com 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
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 7:42 PM, Laszlo Hanyecz las...@heliacal.net 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
On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 1:43 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu 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,
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
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
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* of
On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 10:51 AM, Todd Underwood toddun...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 1:43 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu 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
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 and one MAC
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
On Thu, 11 Jun 2015 19:42:07 -0400, Laszlo Hanyecz las...@heliacal.net
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
On Jun 11, 2015, at 9:06 PM, Karl Auer ka...@biplane.com.au 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
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, for
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 come
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 hen...@acm.org wrote:
From: Laszlo Hanyecz
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 4:42 PM
from the
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 8:26 AM, Lorenzo Colitti lore...@colitti.com 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,
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 4:42 PM, Laszlo Hanyecz las...@heliacal.net 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
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 with
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
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
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, and a wide
On Jun 12, 2015, at 12:51 AM, Ray Soucy r...@maine.edu 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
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
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 be
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
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 10:31:25AM +0200, Sander Steffann wrote:
I don't think it is unreasonable. If the network doesn't support the
features you need then let the user know (grey out the feature and add a
note that says broken network). It will put pressure on the network
department to fix
On Wed, 2015-06-10 at 19:49 +0900, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
Question for everyone on this thread that has said that DHCPv6 NA is a
requirement: suppose that Android supported stateful DHCPv6 addressing,
requested a number of addresses, and did not use any of them if the number
of addresses
Hi,
Ok, let's see how that goes, even among the few people on this thread.
Question for everyone on this thread that has said that DHCPv6 NA is a
requirement: suppose that Android supported stateful DHCPv6 addressing,
requested a number of addresses, and did not use any of them if the
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 4:13 PM, Karl Auer ka...@biplane.com.au wrote:
You need as many as you need. Request them. Worry about it if you don't
get them. This is exactly what happens when N=1, BTW. A DHCPv6 server is
almost certainly not going to have an upper limit that significantly
crimps
So here is the thing.
You can try to use enhanced functionality which depends on multiple
addresses as justification for saying DHCPv6 is not supported.
In practice, your device will just not be supported.
As you pointed out, there isn't anything that forces adoption of IPv6 right
now.
If your
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 5:31 PM, Sander Steffann san...@steffann.nl wrote:
I can also see more deployment issues (much more state in the routers for
all those PDs, needing huge amounts of /64s (or larger) to be able to deal
with a few hundred/thousand clients) but it would be very nice if this
On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 02:56:26PM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
Further, the cellular companies would do well to be more adaptive to the
capabilities that exist in the hardware rather than insisting that they
choose the solution and the hardware makers must adapt.
Hahahahahaha!
Fun fill in the
On Wed, 2015-06-10 at 21:06 +0900, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 8:30 PM, Karl Auer ka...@biplane.com.au wrote:
Seems to me that N will vary depending on what you are trying to do.
A model where the device has to request resources from the network before
enabling tethering,
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 8:35 PM, Ray Soucy r...@maine.edu wrote:
In practice, your device will just not be supported.
As you pointed out, there isn't anything that forces adoption of IPv6
right now.
It's certainly a possibility for both sides in this debate to say my way
or the highway, and
On Wed, 10 Jun 2015, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
We use DHCPv6 to assign just one IP address to the CPE. This is because
otherwise our routers do not know where to route the /48 that is also
passed along with DHCPv6-PD.
If you use DHCPv6-PD you only need a LL address, you do not need a GUA
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 8:30 PM, Karl Auer ka...@biplane.com.au wrote:
Seems to me that N will vary depending on what you are trying to do.
Remember, what I'm trying to do is avoid user-visible regressions while
getting rid of NAT. Today in IPv4, tethering just works, period. No ifs, no
buts,
On Jun 10, 2015, at 8:06 AM, Lorenzo Colitti lore...@colitti.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 8:30 PM, Karl Auer ka...@biplane.com.au wrote:
Seems to me that N will vary depending on what you are trying to do.
Remember, what I'm trying to do is avoid user-visible regressions while
On Jun 10, 2015, at 8:48 AM, Chris Adams c...@cmadams.net wrote:
Except for the ones that don't. Tethering is far from just works,
period. VPNs, VOIP, and games are things that don't always just work
(behind any kind of NAT).
sarcasm
Please don’t bring facts into a discussion about
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 2:06 PM, Lorenzo Colitti lore...@colitti.com
wrote:
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 8:30 PM, Karl Auer ka...@biplane.com.au wrote:
Seems to me that N will vary depending on what you are trying to do.
Remember, what I'm trying to do is avoid user-visible regressions while
Once upon a time, Lorenzo Colitti lore...@colitti.com said:
Remember, what I'm trying to do is avoid user-visible regressions while
getting rid of NAT. Today in IPv4, tethering just works, period. No ifs, no
buts, no requests to the network. The user turns it on, and it works.
IPv4-only apps
* Lorenzo Colitti
Remember, what I'm trying to do is avoid user-visible regressions
while getting rid of NAT. Today in IPv4, tethering just works,
period. No ifs, no buts, no requests to the network. The user turns
it on, and it works.
*cough*
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 9:31 PM, Tore Anderson t...@fud.no wrote:
In particular comment 105 is illuminating. Android is apparently fully
on-board with mobile carriers' desire to break tethering, even going so
far as to implement a feature whose *sole purpose* is to break
thethering.
Yet, at
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?
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
On 10 June 2015 at 14:03, Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jun 2015, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
We use DHCPv6 to assign just one IP address to the CPE. This is because
otherwise our routers do not know where to route the /48 that is also
passed along with DHCPv6-PD.
If
On 6/9/15, 11:01 PM, Lorenzo Colitti lore...@colitti.com wrote:
No, the premise is that from a user's point of view, DHCPv6-only networks
cause regressions in functionality compared to IPv4-only or dual-stack
networks. For example: IPv4 apps cannot be supported at all due because
464xlat cannot
Hi Lorenzo,
It's certainly possible to make Android request N IPv6 addresses via
DHCPv6, and not accept the offer if it is offered fewer than N addresses.
But that only really makes sense if there's a generally-agreed upon minimum
value of N. I'd be happy to work with people on an Internet
Hi,
No, the premise is that from a user's point of view, DHCPv6-only networks
what about DHCPv6 for IPv6 and DHCP for IPv4 - the client should still be able
to
pick up an IPv6 addressinstead of forcing the only option to be SLAAC ?
alan
Hi,
Asking for more addresses when the user tries to enable features such as
tethering, waiting for the network to reply, and disabling the features if
the network does not provide the necessary addresses does not seem like it
would provide a good user experience.
talking of the user
On Wed, 2015-06-10 at 15:32 +0900, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
It's certainly possible to make Android request N IPv6 addresses via
DHCPv6, and not accept the offer if it is offered fewer than N addresses.
But that only really makes sense if there's a generally-agreed upon minimum
value of N. I'd
We use DHCPv6 to assign just one IP address to the CPE. This is because
otherwise our routers do not know where to route the /48 that is also
passed along with DHCPv6-PD.
The routers are stupid I know, but it is what we got. So we simply
implemented a variant of static routes for 2001:db8:x::/48
From: Lorenzo Colitti [mailto:lore...@colitti.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2015 11:47 PM
To: Tony Hain
Cc: Mikael Abrahamsson; Chris Adams; NANOG
Subject: Re: Android (lack of) support for DHCPv6
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 3:38 PM, Tony Hain alh-i...@tndh.net wrote:I claim
On 6/10/15, 2:32 AM, Lorenzo Colitti lore...@colitti.com wrote:
I'd be happy to work with people on an Internet draft or other
standard to define a minimum value for N, but I fear that it may not
possible to gain consensus on that.
WG] No, I think that the document you need to write is the one
On Wed, 10 Jun 2015, George, Wes wrote:
On 6/10/15, 9:13 AM, Baldur Norddahl baldur.nordd...@gmail.com 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
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
On 6/9/15, 11:06 PM, Lorenzo Colitti lore...@colitti.com wrote:
Based on the facts, you could could just as well say that Apple is trying
to advance the state of the art by refusing to provide suboptimal 464xlat
and insisting instead that developers support IPv6-only networks as
first-class
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
On 6/10/15, 9:13 AM, Baldur Norddahl baldur.nordd...@gmail.com 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
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 10:06 PM, Ray Soucy r...@maine.edu 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
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 12:37 PM, Karl Auer ka...@biplane.com.au wrote:
RFC 3315 says you just chuck in multiple IA_NA (or IA_TA) options. The
server will respond with multiple addresses.
And if a device makes a second (, third, fourth, ..) request with a
different DUID, it'll get a second
-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Mikael
Abrahamsson
Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2015 10:39 PM
To: Chris Adams
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Android (lack of) support for DHCPv6
On Tue, 9 Jun 2015, Chris Adams wrote:
Android devices
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 2:36 PM, Hugo Slabbert h...@slabnet.com wrote:
Pardon my ignorance as I don't currently have field experience with
464xlat, but my understanding of the technique is that it is (for the most
part) dependent on the network cooperating (by providing a DNS64 and NAT64)
for
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 3:38 PM, Tony Hain alh-i...@tndh.net wrote:I
claim that there is a platform bug, because there is never a reason to
ignore the WiFi RA. Use the other flag to set a preference if that is
needed, but ignoring the RA just breaks things in unexpected ways. LC has
did a
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 11:43 PM, Lorenzo Colitti lore...@colitti.com
wrote:
I don't think that's a useful argument to make, since you are also saying
that you know better.
Seriously, this is how you are going to respond? You are claiming you know
what is best for everyone and I am telling
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 3:49 PM, Jon Bane j...@nnbfn.net wrote:
Seriously, this is how you are going to respond? You are claiming you
know what is best for everyone and I am telling you that I know is best for
MY network. Who are you to even begin to understand my requirement or
presume to
On Tue, 9 Jun 2015, Tony Hain wrote:
I filed a platform bug on this back in the ICS timeframe, and it still
persists. As I recall, there are 2 flags provided by the OS related to RA
handling. Rather than using the one that sets a preference between the Cell
vs. Wifi interface, at least Samsung
On Tue, 9 Jun 2015, Jon Bane wrote:
Seriously, this is how you are going to respond? You are claiming you
know what is best for everyone and I am telling you that I know is best
for MY network. Who are you to even begin to understand my requirement
or presume to know them better?
* 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,
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 8:35 AM, Tore Anderson t...@fud.no 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
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't
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
pragmatism.
In
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 12:35 AM, Tore Anderson t...@fud.no 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
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.
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 12:36 AM, Jeff McAdams je...@iglou.com 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
On 10 June 2015 at 15:53, Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se 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
* 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
* 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 traversal
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
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
* 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.
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
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 environments
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
From: Lorenzo Colitti lore...@colitti.commailto:lore...@colitti.com
Date: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 at 11:21 AM
To: George, Wes wesley.geo...@twcable.commailto:wesley.geo...@twcable.com
Cc: NANOG nanog@nanog.orgmailto:nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Android (lack of) support for DHCPv6
I don't think
On Jun 10, 2015, at 11:36 AM, Jeff McAdams je...@iglou.com 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,
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.
+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
1 - 100 of 180 matches
Mail list logo
