Android (lack of) support for DHCPv6

Wed Jun 10 15:36:22 UTC 2015

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.

-- 
Jeff

On Jun 10, 2015 10:26 AM, Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo at 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 
>
> On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 12:15 AM, Ray Soucy <rps at maine.edu> 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. 
> > 
> > Very disappointing to see that this is the position of Google. 
> > 
> > 
> > On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 10:58 AM, Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo at colitti.com> 
> > wrote: 
> > 
> >> On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 10:06 PM, Ray Soucy <rps at 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 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 stateful 
> >> DHCPv6 addressing, then it would make sense to implement it. In that 
> >> scenario, Android would still not implement DHCPv6 NA, but it would 
> >> implement DHCPv6 PD. 
> >> 
> >> What needs to be gauged about that course of action is how much consensus 
> >> would be achieved, whether network operators would actually use it (IPv6 
> >> has a long and distinguished history of people claiming "I can't support 
> >> IPv6 until I get feature X", feature X appearing, and people changing their 
> >> claim to "I can't support IPv6 until I get feature Y"), and how much of 
> >> this discussion would be put to bed. 
> >> 
> >> That course of action would seem most feasible if it were accompanied by 
> >> an IETF document that explained the deployment model and clarified what 
> >> "sufficient size" is. 
> >> 
> >> 
> >>> Universities see a constant stream of DMCA violation notices that need 
> >>> to be dealt with and not being able to associate a specific IPv6 address to 
> >>> a specific user is a big enough liability that the only option is to not 
> >>> use IPv6. 
> >>> 
> >> 
> >> 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. Other 
> >> universities, too. It's obviously  not your chosen or preferred mechanism, 
> >> but it does work. 
> >> 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > -- 
> > Ray Patrick Soucy 
> > Network Engineer 
> > University of Maine System 
> > 
> > T: 207-561-3526 
> > F: 207-561-3531 
> > 
> > MaineREN, Maine's Research and Education Network 
> > www.maineren.net 
> > 