Re: [v6ops] out-of-focus: why DHCPv6 breaks Android computers?

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Wed, 30 October 2019 10:55 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E8211200CE for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Oct 2019 03:55:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 2juCRxPRgNdx for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Oct 2019 03:55:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk1-x72c.google.com (mail-qk1-x72c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::72c]) (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 B92E3120013 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Oct 2019 03:55:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qk1-x72c.google.com with SMTP id m4so2190678qke.9 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Oct 2019 03:55:23 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=content-transfer-encoding:from:mime-version:subject:date:message-id :references:cc:in-reply-to:to; bh=GwR1tMBJFeYBSacJgbQWS7VjPrB/pR9xzi0dxMhY9ao=; b=eEemcTymslcw6PmrzYVIb4vFDwYsxoGBvZoFi5ME/BGHniwWlHCo3xrxUEWQeVKswE WAorL0ghHXNexMUR/hJVHvMu8N8ZmEV8FbUNNC33P+Dsszt+7xDHEOTJ4FzSyFCL6lTY FD2vYtfvKaYMhg0COaLHsDC2jisxVFSwy+LLPKlQNoP8vOO0847KF0TqF7k/tsItLIoG sgXOvuMh0XvFBU+k8unnP+eZzo5+t3U+F5ZSuI3kmA7231VWf1wOHziGNkmVaLEXeN8a 5TBTi3a4Uwegl7Xtq+IuyJCnSPZzmeYCv1f7WKi0DGgOGf+0sLugzKX6QYCOphzP049I e2kQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:content-transfer-encoding:from:mime-version :subject:date:message-id:references:cc:in-reply-to:to; bh=GwR1tMBJFeYBSacJgbQWS7VjPrB/pR9xzi0dxMhY9ao=; b=sK0XUbyNyB9p7QvtH/HvMUV6DtpUDzqvY7fC7935d7oNA+uXoByuPFH0mqv4H+ukGc HOi9z/qia+ktBodAf1bXsSS3WVSgBAu1SdqHsTTxYpq6DUuCyAu94C0/aD9MZpYVtImN R9lTX1OBoC4PRfBcRbsYInSaTxqwWZyxG8C4VUWY0mFIueFEAb8y85zT/jMr6Dg8RvRR 6/5zcXY+S0z47f/vxX7LxZGGVHLDG0tE2a2GD9CtnrUQxBLZ7fm+oemjyB8rzNabvmfN POenKm7BmjQDvjRsfgLL7FGlhhMIRm+aQOBq/N2aW9wuIlVA0BtRTXnRVyRwdrPaGpRp OSXA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXPhUB553XABFtz45ZB/pd46HtvxeKO39rvvq0XhaEzuOevvkH7 pQjXonX79HVWuxYk4kRUECrTp9jsW6+kUQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwX46u+uuhaWmeXggLm99djLWrGHVOe0mqQvq8a7x9WmMl1R+g7PNbDqyfLwb2Jlrm7JfDyfQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a37:7383:: with SMTP id o125mr26031625qkc.67.1572432922633; Wed, 30 Oct 2019 03:55:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2601:18b:300:36ee:9be:fcfd:8f35:ceef? ([2601:18b:300:36ee:9be:fcfd:8f35:ceef]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id l93sm980530qtd.86.2019.10.30.03.55.21 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 30 Oct 2019 03:55:21 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2019 06:55:21 -0400
Message-Id: <25B6E7E5-0D9A-4699-8382-074F63E1FEAD@fugue.com>
References: <CAFU7BASR5ODRmu-FUK_BREzXEfphN=t2mvmrXt4iXGFP-28sNQ@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: "Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" <rajiva@cisco.com>, Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>, "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAFU7BASR5ODRmu-FUK_BREzXEfphN=t2mvmrXt4iXGFP-28sNQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jen Linkova <furry13@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: iPad Mail (17A878)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/Icf8g1ZLes_bYzTb_n5EjE7wbrQ>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] out-of-focus: why DHCPv6 breaks Android computers?
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2019 10:55:25 -0000

On Oct 30, 2019, at 12:26 AM, Jen Linkova <furry13@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> What's next (besides sending DECLINE back to the server)?

That’s what’s next.  This is exactly the right thing to do.   Having sent the decline, you would then do another solicit, and unless the DHCP server is broken, you’d get a new address.

Isn’t it also the case that there are addresses that will never be generated by SLAAC?   If so, the DHCP server could allocate addresses that fit that profile and we wouldn’t see this issue in the first place.