Re: [v6ops] Implementation Status of PREF64

[Owen DeLong <[e-mail]>]

> On Sep 30, 2021, at 17:10 , Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo=[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Oct 1, 2021 at 12:59 AM Owen DeLong <owen=[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> This is the problem, right here… There are networks where the administrators do NOT WANT this to be up to the user. They want control over certain policy aspects on their network. You are free to call them whatever names you want, but their networks are part of the target audience for IPv6 and they aren’t going to deploy it unless they have at least equivalent policy enforcement tools to what they have in IPv4 and they’re going to have to be implemented in a way that provides at least some familiarity or clear roadmap of the transition.
> 
> I don't think anybody disagrees (well, I certainly don't) that networks should be able to limit what services devices can and cannot access on their network. Let's take that as a given.
> 
> I think that what SLAAC advocates are saying is "IA_NA and one IPv6 address per device" is not the right way to do that. IPv6 addresses are plentiful, and there's no need to force devices to only have one. Just as an example: DHCPv6 PD is strictly superior to DHCPv6 NA in terms of functionality. The tracking and admission control ability are exactly the same, but PD doesn't have the problem of limiting the number of addresses per device.

And what everyone else is saying is “It doesn’t matter what you (collectively) think is or is not the right way to do it, it’s my network and I want to do it my way.” Until you make that possible, I’m not implementing your new protocol.

> Proponents of DHCPv6 can say until the cows come home that "IA_NA and one address per device" is more deployable because people are accustomed to DHCPv4 and one IP address per device. That's true, but it does not make it a superior technical solution. Why can't we do better? More importantly, reading this thread - why aren't we trying to do better? The IETF is a technical forum, not an IPv6 promotion organization. While it might be fun to bash implementations for not implementing particular solutions, what we should be doing here is looking for better technical solutions to this problem that don't have the drawbacks that IA_NA has.

That’s not what is being said. A lot of this has little to do with what they are accustomed to and a lot more to do with a combination of:
	+	Enterprise policies that they cannot conveniently change
	+	Government and other regulations that they cannot avoid
	+	Reporting requirements that they cannot subvert
	+	Limitations of the tools they have available to comply with the above.
etc.

In other words, you keep trying to suggest that there are alternative technical solutions, but you ignore the fact that this is NOT a technical problem.

It’s a political problem and for now, at least, the important thing to them is these politics. IPv6 is something they’re potentially willing to do if it
doesn’t create the above political problems for therm.

On virtually every platform except android, it doesn’t.

Owen