Android (lack of) support for DHCPv6

Michael Thomas mike at mtcc.com
Wed Jun 10 22:50:33 UTC 2015


On 06/10/2015 03:32 PM, George, Wes wrote:
> From: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf at gmail.com<mailto:ted.ietf at gmail.com>>
> Date: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 at 6:09 PM
> To: "George, Wes" <wesley.george at twcable.com<mailto:wesley.george at twcable.com>>
> Cc: Doug Barton <dougb at dougbarton.us<mailto:dougb at dougbarton.us>>, "nanog at nanog.org<mailto:nanog at nanog.org>" <nanog at nanog.org<mailto:nanog at 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-style approaches in the past few years and my calibration is off. If you have pointers to implementations that are for mobile devices, I'd be happy to be educated.
>
> WG] I was merely observing that bridging so that multiple virtual interfaces/devices can share the same interface and get their own addresses is a solved problem generically. From what I can see with KVM, it involves creating a bridge interface or group, and bridging both the physical interface and any virtual interfaces into it, and then standing back. Doesn't seem obvious to me that it requires an entire hypervisor-equivalent network stack to get this one fairly limited feature, and I'm not aware of any mobile implementations, but it does seem to me that its presence in Linux makes it something we shouldn't dismiss out of hand when exploring solutions to this problem given Android's Linux roots - At it's core, it's still a general–purpose computer with a set of network interfaces. I'm not an expert on either Android's networking stack nor Linux's, nor hypervisors, but I have a hunch if this was allowed to move through the existing Android feature development process, we might find some folks that are and can tell us whether this is doable as an alternative to DHCP–PD or SLAAC on networks that generally adhere to the one address per device rule.
>
>
Besides, virtualizing the os environment on a phone would be a very 
interesting thing in its own right. I thought that
was gaining momentum at one point as a way to deal with the friction 
between corpro-IT demands of control, and
end user desire to keep nannyware crap off their phone -- just have two 
vm's with each environment.

Mike




More information about the NANOG mailing list