Re: [v6ops] Implementation Status of PREF64

Simon <linux@thehobsons.co.uk> Wed, 13 October 2021 20:03 UTC

Return-Path: <linux@thehobsons.co.uk>
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 1CAE23A0D4E for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Oct 2021 13:03:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 4bYwktn_s9We for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Oct 2021 13:03:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from patsy.thehobsons.co.uk (patsy.thehobsons.co.uk [80.229.10.150]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8A03D3A0D47 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Oct 2021 13:03:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at patsy.thehobsons.co.uk
Received: from smtpclient.apple (MacBook-Pro.thehobsons.co.uk [192.168.137.121]) by patsy.thehobsons.co.uk (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2F4AE1A021 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Oct 2021 20:03:24 +0000 (UTC)
From: Simon <linux@thehobsons.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.120.0.1.13\))
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2021 21:03:23 +0100
References: <EFC78F4B-873B-42EE-8DC5-04C29758B0D0@consulintel.es> <YVNhdioAbeO9p2/G@Space.Net> <CAKD1Yr2+Y59v81mPBn4Y3u0LRX7TzahbnaF1hVUZ+NSf0Jj_4g@mail.gmail.com> <20210930.082006.177771395.sthaug@nethelp.no> <d0c441c6-68fa-52ef-7c60-e8f0cff80ba0@gmail.com> <64E83A09-C4DC-428C-88D1-79FAD6AAB72E@delong.com> <d1e5aa61-c61b-6e5f-9c6f-50f88d7a28a2@gmail.com> <F4F2E2BA-C07C-457C-A244-8A3220B32226@delong.com>
To: v6ops@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <F4F2E2BA-C07C-457C-A244-8A3220B32226@delong.com>
Message-Id: <C34C198D-51F5-4189-8913-305733B6AA90@thehobsons.co.uk>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.120.0.1.13)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/p8EAiIWq6y-JEvY8RD2buoKQQ6E>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Implementation Status of PREF64
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, 13 Oct 2021 20:03:35 -0000

Owen DeLong <owen=40delong.com@dmarc.ietf.org> 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 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