Re: [v6ops] Android must allow root access

Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> Wed, 06 September 2017 17:19 UTC

Return-Path: <swmike@swm.pp.se>
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 493DB132A8F for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Sep 2017 10:19:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.301
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.301 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=swm.pp.se
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 VPPqF7asPdaT for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Sep 2017 10:19:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (ipv6.swm.pp.se [IPv6:2a00:801::f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E4E4D132946 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Sep 2017 10:19:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id 91B56B1; Wed, 6 Sep 2017 19:19:04 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=swm.pp.se; s=mail; t=1504718344; bh=olBJ5jCSR4eZcejQ1I0LYA5BdC0t9UJmvUMOxFQcc9s=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=rSe6vDHgcF6Wt7XwHiW3d1nzp0mLIsRWONCHdYplF5yFNG4C/cEoZXd0mUzbEggLF 7aY8IE9SU6wcQAOR//Ghaieyy9ue/n9iCAHPw/xpCgd+GfSLa8CFv77fBGXewxbgjz Fkh860Xd5H00r3N+kXkkC1BKvFcfgf47GNaEIYb0=
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78C9FAF; Wed, 6 Sep 2017 19:19:04 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2017 19:19:04 +0200
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
To: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
cc: "Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>, "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <7bd0ceb3-b17e-3448-d5ac-bf98dc1e6db4@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1709061916370.29378@uplift.swm.pp.se>
References: <7537deef-8f87-5187-1e44-595ac63a16ca@gmail.com> <20170706011605.1BEDB7D9F1D6@rock.dv.isc.org> <2c145a79-ad0a-59fd-0300-f427d2fbd6f6@gmail.com> <9948cb75-6c11-9071-697f-a79702472132@gmail.com> <5c78ea63-6764-13a2-ddd4-ba7956694f4d@gmail.com> <f42ea748-ac6a-450d-cd49-aef9e1efd720@gmail.com> <9ea82cc815424d038978f46f94fbf5b3@XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com> <0b5919f6-a146-2086-055b-7ac16787556a@gmail.com> <7367f3ec99ae42c2b425b38d80ca2abd@XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com> <acf4bdf0-ec50-d7e1-a62c-8ca2aad6055c@gmail.com> <d2493aa78d6646268316ab24cfe591e9@XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com> <7bd0ceb3-b17e-3448-d5ac-bf98dc1e6db4@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07)
Organization: People's Front Against WWW
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/XI456lXVoYbuZEOhRDiIwZe-05E>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Android must allow root access
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 06 Sep 2017 17:19:21 -0000

On Wed, 6 Sep 2017, Alexandre Petrescu wrote:

> I dont understand why the 64share INFORMATIONAL RFC does address 
> assignment by default, yet if I want to do it with the Prefix Delegation 
> Stds Track RFC I have to risk the platform by trying to root it.

That's because you're trying to install something on it by yourself, when 
the vendor has decided this is not something they want their users to do.

So proper procedure is to go to vendor and ask for feature.

I've been out of the loop for a long time now, but I still haven't heard 
of any mobile core vendor who implemented DHCPv6-PD. That's the right 
thing to get done (and for instance on some WWAN router to have DHCPv6-PD 
client), then after that you can grow the rest of the ecosystem by doing 
feature requests.

There is no standards action to be had here, the problem isn't with 
standards. It's with getting running code into all components needed to 
make this happen. There is nothing fundamental in 3GPP architecture that 
makes DHCPv6-PD hard to do, it's just that... nobody does it, so nobody 
tests against it.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se