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
- IPv10 (Temp. name IPmix) (draft-omar-ipv10-00.txt… Khaled Omar
- RE: IPv10 (Temp. name IPmix) (draft-omar-ipv10-00… Khaled Omar
- Re: IPv10 (Temp. name IPmix) (draft-omar-ipv10-00… Ladislav Lhotka
- Re: IPv10 (Temp. name IPmix) (draft-omar-ipv10-00… Leonir Hoxha
- RE: IPv10 (Temp. name IPmix) (draft-omar-ipv10-00… Tony Hain
- Re IPv6 adoption (Was Re: IPv10 (Temp. name IPmix… Steve Crocker
- Re: IPv10 (Temp. name IPmix) (draft-omar-ipv10-00… Randy Bush
- Re: IPv10 (Temp. name IPmix) (draft-omar-ipv10-00… shogunx
- Re: IPv10 (Temp. name IPmix) (draft-omar-ipv10-00… David Conrad
- Re: IPv10 (Temp. name IPmix) (draft-omar-ipv10-00… Randy Bush
- Re: IPv10 (Temp. name IPmix) (draft-omar-ipv10-00… shogunx
- Re: IPv10 (Temp. name IPmix) (draft-omar-ipv10-00… Patrik Fältström
- Re: IPv10 (Temp. name IPmix) (draft-omar-ipv10-00… John C Klensin
- Re: IPv10 (Temp. name IPmix) (draft-omar-ipv10-00… Patrik Fältström
- The demand for IPv4 addresses (was: IPv10) S Moonesamy
- Re: IPv10 (Temp. name IPmix) (draft-omar-ipv10-00… S Moonesamy
- Re: IPv10 (Temp. name IPmix) (draft-omar-ipv10-00… Lee Howard
- Re: IPv10 (Temp. name IPmix) (draft-omar-ipv10-00… John C Klensin
- Re: IPv6, was IPv10 John Levine
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10 John Levine
- Re: IPv6, was IPv10 Brian E Carpenter
- Re: IPv6, was IPv10 (fwd) John R Levine
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10 Brian E Carpenter
- Re: IPv6, was IPv10 (fwd) Brian E Carpenter
- Re: IPv6, was IPv10 Mark Andrews
- Re: IPv6, was IPv10 John R Levine
- Re: IPv6, was IPv10 (fwd) Mark Andrews
- Re: IPv6, was IPv10 Mark Andrews
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10 Mark Andrews
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10 John R Levine
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10 Mark Andrews
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10 Randy Bush
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10 Randy Bush
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10 John Levine
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10 Mark Andrews
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10 Brian E Carpenter
- RE: multihoming, was IPv10 Michel Py
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10 John C Klensin
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10 John R Levine
- Re: IPv6, was IPv10 shogunx
- Re: IPv10 (Temp. name IPmix) (draft-omar-ipv10-00… Patrik Fältström
- Re: IPv10 (Temp. name IPmix) (draft-omar-ipv10-00… Randy Bush
- Re: IPv10 (Temp. name IPmix) (draft-omar-ipv10-00… heasley
- Re: IPv10 (Temp. name IPmix) (draft-omar-ipv10-00… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10 Brian E Carpenter
- Re: IPv10 (Temp. name IPmix) (draft-omar-ipv10-00… Patrik Fältström
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10 Masataka Ohta
- Re: IPv10 (Temp. name IPmix) (draft-omar-ipv10-00… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10 Brian E Carpenter
- Re: IPv10 (Temp. name IPmix) (draft-omar-ipv10-00… Randy Bush
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10 Octavio Alvarez
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10 Stewart Bryant
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10 Masataka Ohta
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10 Brian E Carpenter
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10 Brian E Carpenter
- Re: IPv10 (Temp. name IPmix) (draft-omar-ipv10-00… David Farmer
- Re: IPv10 (Temp. name IPmix) (draft-omar-ipv10-00… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10 Jeff Tantsura
- Re: why v6 still isn't ready, was IPv10 John Levine
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10 Masataka Ohta
- Re: IPv10 (Temp. name IPmix) (draft-omar-ipv10-00… Randy Bush
- Re: IPv10 (Temp. name IPmix) (draft-omar-ipv10-00… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: IPv10 (Temp. name IPmix) (draft-omar-ipv10-00… Randy Bush
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10 Randy Bush
- Re: why v6 still isn't ready, was IPv10 Randy Bush
- Re: why v6 still isn't ready, was IPv10 Brian E Carpenter
- Re: why v6 still isn't ready, was IPv10 Randy Bush