Android (lack of) support for DHCPv6

Ted Hardie ted.ietf at gmail.com
Wed Jun 10 21:46:11 UTC 2015


On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 2:36 PM, Doug Barton <dougb at dougbarton.us> 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 think it's the right answer here,
> but I don't think it's automatically a problem either.
>

​So, I don't think I'm particularly rabid about this, but I have dealt for
a long time on the application side with the side effects.  Anyone who has
had to engineer a system that requires STUN/TURN/ICE can tell you that it
is pretty much a dancing bear.  The wonder is how sweetly the bear dances,
but that it dances at all.  If one of the things I'm tethering wants to do
RTCWEB, it's going to be painful if it doesn't have its own address,
because it will need to hairpin out to do STUN at the very least.​


>  ​Back to the question I asked before:  does "static" solve the stated
>> problems without "single"?
>>
>
> 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.
>

​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, at least from your perspective.  Is that a
fair assessment?

regards,

Ted​




>
> --
> I am conducting an experiment in the efficacy of PGP/MIME signatures. This
> message should be signed. If it is not, or the signature does not validate,
> please let me know how you received this message (direct, or to a list) and
> the mail software you use. Thanks!
>
>



More information about the NANOG mailing list