Re: [v6ops] Implementation Status of PREF64

["Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <[e-mail]>]

Yes I’m with you here.

 IPE can document things that could be done with IPv6 as a defense against the temptation to define something all new.

Being not IETF it leaves more time for ASICs to prepare. Which takes at best a couple years. But compared to the wasted last 20 years that’s short term!

Regards,

Pascal

> Le 14 oct. 2021 à 13:15, Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]> a écrit :
> 
> 
> 
>> Le 13/10/2021 à 23:16, Mark Smith a écrit :
>> On Thu, 14 Oct 2021, 07:04 Simon, <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>> Owen DeLong <owen=[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>>> An enterprise network might deploy its own DHCPv6 .apk's into
>> employee's Android smartphones, for that particular enterprise
>> network.
>>> Most enterprises expect this feature to be built into the OS.
>> Indeed, the days of having to install pieces of software to get BASIC
>> network functions is so ... last century. Brings back not so fond
>> memories of having to pick an IP implementation (actually, pick a
>> protocol and implementation), and then juggle with your load order to
>> maximise hi-mem in DOS, and all that stuff.
>> How long is it now since anything without IPv4 built in would be considered “broken” - and yet we’re still considering (or at least, some people are suggesting) that IPv6 should be held back to how networking was several decades ago !
>> Not to put too fine a point on it, but I have seen no argument against Android including standards compliance
>> DHCPv6 is not required. See BCP 220.
> 
> BCP 220 RFC 8504 "IPv6 nodes reqs" is a huge list of protocols with many
> intermingled 'may's and MAYs, but without any 'NOT RECOMMENDED' DHCPv6
> even though there are a few 'not recommended's.
> 
> So I do not quite understand when it is said that BCP 220 makes it that
> DHCPv6 is not required.
> 
> I can say that BCP 220 says that DHCPv6 is a 'may' because it says
> "Hosts may be configured with [...] DHCPv6 [among others]' but that has
> as much validity as saying that BCP 220 says that DHCPv6 is not required.
> 
> What did you mean?
> 
> Alex
> 
>> and a working DHCPv6 client other than : “it’s not how we want people
>> to be using the devices they have bought AND SUPPOSEDLY OWN and we’re
>> big enough to force our rules on the world”.
>> Sorry Lorenzo, but basically the arguments put forward against allowing DHCPv6 client on Android come down to “but we want people to
>> use them THIS way regardless of how they actually want to use it”.
>> Dressed up a bit in the name of “protecting users” which is rich
>> given that Google’s primary business is in amassing and profitting
>> from people’s personal information - so perhaps it’s a more a case of
>> “can’t have others abusing users’ privacy - that’s our job”.
>> Just saying how it looks.
>> Simon
>> _______________________________________________ v6ops mailing list [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>
>> _______________________________________________ v6ops mailing list [e-mail] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
> 
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops