IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: DHCPv6-PD is fine

Havard Eidnes <he@uninett.no> Mon, 09 November 2020 21:30 UTC

Return-Path: <he@uninett.no>
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 A40603A1423 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Nov 2020 13:30:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=uninett.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 2AdorJ6jT73S for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Nov 2020 13:30:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smistad.uninett.no (smistad.uninett.no [IPv6:2001:700:1:0:eeb1:d7ff:fe59:fbaa]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 65DA43A141F for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Nov 2020 13:30:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smistad.uninett.no (smistad.uninett.no [158.38.62.77]) by smistad.uninett.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 799D643EADF; Mon, 9 Nov 2020 22:30:47 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=uninett.no; s=he201803; t=1604957447; bh=gZHoXMIOC1LzHgwzvcsQlkQxwORhEs/knpe3S0H9Pfs=; h=Date:To:Cc:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=Pqe+nqQ7t3ciwkvXzRp9MN4BCHHqqiWPuEYOSQSHECMecInxz21tKz0DvGlVnuFm/ t84rqxtWBn4RuPw5gdTJ9VQnmcn7oXNfeHXyEj92f++KMKbYbpvTHoKLa5Ek1UIlRJ IhXdP9B48Rhb2RF0HQle1f5xhT6FFmXI7pAzERKs=
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2020 22:30:47 +0100
Message-Id: <20201109.223047.2031950722978893252.he@uninett.no>
To: mellon@fugue.com
Cc: bs7652@att.com, ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: DHCPv6-PD is fine
From: Havard Eidnes <he@uninett.no>
In-Reply-To: <06002E16-10CF-4C39-80A7-4EF2B1DFF4CA@fugue.com>
References: <SN6PR02MB4512DE7BF31D8758BE15D899C3EA0@SN6PR02MB4512.namprd02.prod.outlook.com> <20201109.220035.1460667476695106090.he@uninett.no> <06002E16-10CF-4C39-80A7-4EF2B1DFF4CA@fugue.com>
X-Mailer: Mew version 6.8 on Emacs 26.3
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/rcouzCP4cSKBLtJGrQeXHsCCdOU>
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 21:30:53 -0000

>>>> 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?

I can't claim first-hand knowledge on that point; someone who has
should speak up.  If I recall correctly the claim made was that it had
to do with the "mobile modem" implementations in common use.

Regards,

- Håvard

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email