Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-addr-notification - Respond by September 13, 2023

[Ole Troan <[e-mail]>]

>> Going by that logic. I think you could simplify your statement to:
>> It’s not possible to build an IPv6 only enterprise network. Period.
> 
> Yes, indeed I should have said "IPv6-mostly" - so some hosts are
> IPv6-only, while the others can be dual-stack or IPv4-only.
> That is definitely possible as I've done exactly that.
> There will be a long tail of legacy hosts - but we do not expect them
> to support all those shiny new things we develop.
> What I mean is that for *any given host* we shall assume that "if the
> host supports that new IPv6-related feature we develop, we shall
> assume that the host is IPv6-only".
> 
>> Not all hosts support 464XLAT. Nor any other IPv4 transition mechanism.
>> Not all networks support the mechanisms for NAT64 discovery.
> 
> Going by that logic, not all networks support IPv6, so we can't deploy
> dual-stack either.
> 
>> In the long and arduous path towards that, if it ever happens. I am not at all convinced that the current protocol under discussion, the DHCPv6 address notification protocol is helping rather than harming.
> 
> To get the discussion back on track - could you please elaborate a bit
> on the "harming" bit? Sorry if I missed it - I did read the thread but
> somehow I'm not sure where the harm is coming from - maybe we can
> address that.
> 

I thought I had been quite clear on that.

- in SLAAC only networks, M or O flag has to be set, leading to clients having to try DHCPv6 address assignment or acquiring configuration information where there is none. I.e abuse of M/O flags
- Not robust enough for forensics, so additional mechanisms would be required anyway
- No way to only use this mechanism for hosts that do not support DHCP address assignment
- Makes it even harder and less understandable for operators. And introduces another cycle of bugs in implementations supporting this.

The “address that”, is simply to enable the DHCPv6 code in Android.
It’s sad that we let one vendor run over the rest of the community like this.

O.