IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: DHCPv6-PD is fine

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Mon, 09 November 2020 21:23 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66F933A1483 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Nov 2020 13:23:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.886
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.886 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_DNS_FOR_FROM=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, T_SPF_TEMPERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 is5cN83VGqEL for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Nov 2020 13:23:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qk1-x72e.google.com (mail-qk1-x72e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::72e]) (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 9379F3A146F for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Nov 2020 13:23:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qk1-x72e.google.com with SMTP id l2so9463520qkf.0 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 09 Nov 2020 13:23:07 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=v0MwHZNKyezqTrJrg0riPCmsxzXkE37NZhXT/77+OIY=; b=e6cKr+SLxWi60TymlgkTN2C0J9xBJm0K7dMO80E8vBF7KeZEqPdVOJQ+ESHlWnj8KM +UnHYa8NSaUtyFqMK1YDjSxysJgTvhJxbY1+7FfT7lTcxk+pFkmzrfgCVlz3t+0mPTyt CNFbKuB0yANbnmaMLfngBZU2HDaPZROnc2rLHQi72iSwFxpBZAWjlxSByBQrXFHx28vJ GIDH0u2QLdPEXxL2giB/vihK3CNOpTFjOhv4UveymOu8PjN68m9Q5Htc2Cc+3LFuqxiL /O4fiMTu4zyY0+h1/V5H4WtxvuckDMWLX/9J1J/jn3b8h7gP6L/n6+meycY7l5V7UkZo h85A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=v0MwHZNKyezqTrJrg0riPCmsxzXkE37NZhXT/77+OIY=; b=cJPMYhd4C4aShTwPMiH8anOuDfj3tQeL7+WfDQWjC3s1/jHHCfyWTPkSNDrYnOslxf +J7+jV1kY8etK6oFdlsj3grEtEKM/tf/LM5ZLHXLEmY3g6HIIE87UrmzE0G/YG2r0QdH VUgxHC1Z0tD3EsmX0CR04/CGguKawagEGBhkwTIKBwsE3S7GtKNCp/q4z0U6KfBMgJOI 9s5kl78ALxoW9szOYJ3rKYViQWJxzCEqP7qNYUbz2Zik+ZrPZ408LkRwCT7e20SHZxDZ cgOAJVuAiuB8QnoqXqDS1yul0mErH/u2JPD2ciOGsX8IOnjUoajBRQF5l9nbAKQphvLC D1KQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532jD69dJxYwPiQI7Nz8E87i8x1j29S6FVEbDgDgcKiYYGSdh0iM bW5ZC7VhLiAv6Qe1mDXzk3JjWg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJygFHl5qkZ0kSmLDv7ZPhcT5XjudlBrSAon51/fcxeFLkebtbmCNpmcrt9kBCGZmw6wxylv+A==
X-Received: by 2002:a37:58c1:: with SMTP id m184mr16121838qkb.305.1604956986537; Mon, 09 Nov 2020 13:23:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mithrandir.lan (c-24-91-177-160.hsd1.ma.comcast.net. [24.91.177.160]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id c12sm6365534qtx.54.2020.11.09.13.23.05 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 09 Nov 2020 13:23:06 -0800 (PST)
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Message-Id: <06002E16-10CF-4C39-80A7-4EF2B1DFF4CA@fugue.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_47FBEB4A-54A2-4CFF-9ADE-DDD243A6717F"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.20.0.2.21\))
Subject: Re: DHCPv6-PD is fine
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2020 16:23:04 -0500
In-Reply-To: <20201109.220035.1460667476695106090.he@uninett.no>
Cc: BARBARA H STARK <bs7652@att.com>, ipv6@ietf.org
To: Havard Eidnes <he=40uninett.no@dmarc.ietf.org>
References: <350919b2-fe50-a3b8-3f15-4ce32124d495@gmail.com> <3377F3AE-BDFE-4AAC-ACA3-0F3D1A4D8854@thehobsons.co.uk> <SN6PR02MB4512DE7BF31D8758BE15D899C3EA0@SN6PR02MB4512.namprd02.prod.outlook.com> <20201109.220035.1460667476695106090.he@uninett.no>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.20.0.2.21)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/cCrqxfdBetDhyO3oYocVzp3dt3w>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2020 21:23:16 -0000

On Nov 9, 2020, at 4:00 PM, Havard Eidnes <he=40uninett.no@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>>> From what I've been reading in this thread, in the mobile
>>> world the problem isn't DHCPv6-PD, but the cellular world
>>> having not adopted it, or even blocked it (ref discussion of
>>> mobile modems blocking DHCP packets).
> 
> Is this lack of flexibility for all intents and purposes
> imprinted into silicon?  That would ... be an extremely effective
> road-block for practical deployment if one wanted to make a
> change where DHCP should additionally be used.

I’m having trouble envisioning how this would even be possible. Is there an IP stack on the chip that has a firewall in it that blocks DHCP? This woud be surprising. Why would they go to that effort?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email