Re: why v6 still isn't ready, was IPv10

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Sun, 01 January 2017 19:22 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B6BC1293E9 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 1 Jan 2017 11:22:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eZG1M5titg0y for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 1 Jan 2017 11:22:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pg0-x22d.google.com (mail-pg0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c05::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EACAF126B6D for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 1 Jan 2017 11:22:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pg0-x22d.google.com with SMTP id f188so196705971pgc.3 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 01 Jan 2017 11:22:45 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:organization:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=HBi2HKxtnTe9p8OVrRgPQM/DgdxKfNY4JZgBMtXeQqo=; b=a/vcST13Ifn9dIaS983wCUNik2c+Gh7KyWPJjOMdMDpiZwHmSnHHssJE89mEGje24+ LNtwxGpSI74UJckLztDlODikPPSTHE3Pha92T0aE5mmzOFgqS90jrrOpj/jQmFtsOwe7 RAGhi3TJH1GrQiQufqpgSAlsLzrWPH3hOS8zWn3rZhMqc2Eiz6bFWWbygN0cbbL/t4Dk xbc15Lhj4Rb4vl2SyfOecmJPOolx9ZNlnRd+1nZotcDxJ3sxxP323LeLZeas/tMPEwY8 xYaPFyhaDbTNdVcU6rLpvr9GpKc0NPjoG3vxjCAH25F6lz88gd+vfOlMGXxXjFdvmyGC xTgA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=HBi2HKxtnTe9p8OVrRgPQM/DgdxKfNY4JZgBMtXeQqo=; b=m/aQVjq4gUI37mLw95YQExUO4SU/U8X3qx3qw1fHW+QmIjr36qK46L+LyA1/n2qNNX oQs+sCQm4TgKbm8oC1k1ZfaHDyFC2e0k+65Iwn7i7sO441wdYDqwRtF0x1mj/CohNu99 x2Xkj/O7h3JXVPhVJk1iKRx9Vw7m2Zf0pSRDX+XEpcMQvhX7/eImUSCIrjUJakmPvLsX 4hvGr4uokQIP4i1lLT81Y/EaqXpNmtDFRIcXBnVb9d37ga7rCJ90sOnXzW0PSeZPNGCU Bm5frqVI4/tGFwqMmq4qsgdWMPzBh4SStTpIbMaQwjzc3Ulm6sveDAF0XHLhKL6ehREf 04XQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXJY2iCgbPzUTjyva7V8fK1RPTkruAXmHD72oyJe+Je5XDQfh4phlgiuMYYpp5YVpA==
X-Received: by 10.99.96.9 with SMTP id u9mr96766932pgb.151.1483298565314; Sun, 01 Jan 2017 11:22:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2406:e007:48a2:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781? ([2406:e007:48a2:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id s3sm94331138pfg.14.2017.01.01.11.22.43 for <ietf@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 01 Jan 2017 11:22:44 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: why v6 still isn't ready, was IPv10
To: ietf@ietf.org
References: <eb7127f9-4f29-325b-11cb-9accdf300b4c@gmail.com> <20161231231811.45008.qmail@ary.lan> <m2vatz2xs7.wl-randy@psg.com>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <bc6fa473-5d7c-e0ea-bb04-91cd551fe17c@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2017 08:22:40 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <m2vatz2xs7.wl-randy@psg.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/bM0lPEUvhZ_LGdp_G7q9m3J-9sQ>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 01 Jan 2017 19:22:47 -0000

On 01/01/2017 17:45, Randy Bush wrote:
>> Windows Phone  0.3%
>> Apple iOS     12.5%
>> Android       86.8%
>>
>> It appears that not implementing DHCPv6 is the key to world
>> domination.  Next question, please?
> 
> you are confusing coincidence with causality

Indeed. In home networks, small office networks, many campus networks,
and in 3GPP deployment, DHCPv6 isn't a requirement. But in large corporate
networks, and many other campus networks, it is. Android BYOD devices won't
do too well in those. End users might not notice, because they will get 3GPP
service.

I think (unlike Randy?) that having the choice between SLAAC and DHCPv6 is
a fine thing. But hampering DHCPv6 by not having a next-hop router option
is a self-inflicted wound. (And the discussion belongs here, because it
transcends WGs.)

    Brian