Re: [v6ops] Implementation Status of PREF64

[David Farmer <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 8:21 AM STARK, BARBARA H <[e-mail]> wrote:

> > > but hosts should not
> > > be able to set policies on how many IPv6 addresses they accept.
> >
> > Sure they can.  There's nothing stopping a dhcpv6 client from refusing
> > to enable ipv6 on an interface if it gets less than N addresses.
>
> Host policy should be dictated by the people in control of the host and
> not IETF.
> IETF has no business restricting the rights of device owners and private
> networks operators to dictate what devices are allowed to do on their
> network. This sort of prohibition on device owners and private network
> admins setting host policy would be 100% harmful.
>

Ok, the IETF shouldn't pick N, I'm ok with that. But, does that mean you
think it is inappropriate for host implementations to enforce some number
of IPv6 addresses be available? Or, are you saying that is completely up to
network operators?

I will note a few things;

1. The IETF hasn't picked a value of  N, but it has, through RFC7934, said
that N<1.
2. In effect Android already enforces, N<1, by only supporting the
self-assigned addressing model of SLAAC.
3. However, by not supporting a DHCPv6 client, Android doesn't support the
managed-assignment addressing model of DHCPv6.

In an effort to find a compromise that allows Android to support DHCPv6 and
therefore the managed-assignment addressing model, I'm suggesting it is
reasonable for DHCPv6 clients to require the availability of more than one
IPv6 address before it enables it's IPv6 stack, and it sounds like Lorenzo
is at least open to discuss such a comprise.

However, it seems that some people are insisting that network operators
should be able to assign one and only one IPv6 address per client.
Personally, I think this argument is utterly futile, is creating a
deadlock, and it is holding back the deployment of IPv6. However, this
deadlock is not caused only by Android not supporting DHCPv6, but it is
also caused by those that insist that assigning one and only one address is
a valid IPv6 deployment strategy, and that network operators should have
ultimate and unilateral control in this matter.

I'm willing to concede that network operators need to allocate more than
one IPv6 address per client.. Furthermore, I think it is very important
that all major operating systems allow for both IPv6 address
assignment models, self-assigned (SLAAC) and managed-assignment (DHCPv6).

I'm having visions of IETF becoming not unlike the Texas legislature in its
> desire to dictate "morality".
> Barbara
>

Insisting the network operators have ultimate and unilateral control of
this issue is equally dictating "morality".

Thanks.

-- 
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:[e-mail]
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE        Phone: [phone]
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================