Re: [v6ops] Implementation Status of PREF64

["STARK, BARBARA H" <[e-mail]>]

From: David Farmer <[e-mail]>
On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 8:21 AM STARK, BARBARA H <[e-mail]<mailto:[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".

<bhs> Just a few points:
- RFC7934 is scoped to "general-purpose end hosts" (which is not defined and therefore you can define the term any way that makes sense for you). RFC7934 is very specifically *not* scoped to all hosts.
 - I used the term "private network operators" in my comment and not "network operators". Just to be clear, "private network operators" include enterprises, small businesses, and home owners and not ISPs. I make no statement about ISPs. So you're saying that I should not be allowed to operate my home network any way I want (so long as that doesn't interfere with others' rights - e.g., doesn't allow my devices or my network to be used as part of a DDoS attack) because the IETF has claimed it has rights to dictate my home network and device addressing policies? <sarcasm>Maybe IETF should encourage legislators to pass a law that anyone can sue somebody (bounty of $10k?) for helping a home network owner subvert an IETF BCP.</sarcasm> And you think that my objection to IETF claiming rights over my network is *me* dictating morality? Really? No. I absolutely, 100%, claim full ownership of my home network and its policies (other than those that could interfere with other living human beings' networks and devices). If you can explain how my only allowing a host to have a single address is harmful (presents a security risk) *to somebody else* then let's discuss. If you're patronizingly trying to prevent me from what you think would be self-harm (e.g., allowing home owners to assign just a single address might cause some home owners mental anguish) or because you think hosts should have rights, then there's nothing for us to discuss.
Barbara   // BTW, I changed the <1 to >1 in the quoted text