IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: DHCPv6-PD is fine

Simon Hobson <linux@thehobsons.co.uk> Mon, 09 November 2020 17:15 UTC

Return-Path: <linux@thehobsons.co.uk>
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 C66723A124F for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Nov 2020 09:15:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 ClbCrGEZVBbo for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Nov 2020 09:15:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from patsy.thehobsons.co.uk (patsy.thehobsons.co.uk [80.229.10.150]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0D10A3A0E02 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Nov 2020 09:15:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at patsy.thehobsons.co.uk
Received: from [192.168.137.104] (unknown [192.168.137.104]) by patsy.thehobsons.co.uk (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 55A201A073 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Nov 2020 17:15:30 +0000 (UTC)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2104\))
Subject: Re: DHCPv6-PD is fine
From: Simon Hobson <linux@thehobsons.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <350919b2-fe50-a3b8-3f15-4ce32124d495@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2020 17:15:28 +0000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <3377F3AE-BDFE-4AAC-ACA3-0F3D1A4D8854@thehobsons.co.uk>
References: <1258a91f37274343a5d6b8f5ebf14708@boeing.com> <350919b2-fe50-a3b8-3f15-4ce32124d495@gmail.com>
To: 6man <ipv6@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2104)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/lpcwhviR5A4BsEAlhoMe5Qz96bk>
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 17:15:36 -0000

Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> wrote:

> But in other places, automobiles for example, one must use the existing cellular networks.  DHCPv6-PD is not fine there.  It's not FUD.

Just to clarify ...
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).

For clarity, is there a problem with DHCPv6-PD, or is there a problem with the mobile world not supporting it for whatever reason ?

The reason I ask is that if it's the latter, then the response to "it doesn't work, we need to change something" is that you need to go to the mobile industry and tell them to fix their ****.

My 2d worth, Simon

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email