Re: [v6ops] Implementation Status of PREF64

Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> Thu, 14 October 2021 11:14 UTC

Return-Path: <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.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 34C993A13AF for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Oct 2021 04:14:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.667
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.667 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD=1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 YQ5vga-ck1hJ for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Oct 2021 04:14:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from oxalide-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr (oxalide-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr [132.168.224.13]) (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 92A663A13A4 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Oct 2021 04:14:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by oxalide-sys.extra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id 19EBEmsw004735 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Oct 2021 13:14:48 +0200
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 91BF2206652 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Oct 2021 13:14:48 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from muguet2-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr (muguet2-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.13]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 877DE20660E for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Oct 2021 13:14:48 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [10.8.35.150] (is154594.intra.cea.fr [10.8.35.150]) by muguet2-sys.intra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id 19EBEmWt032178 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Oct 2021 13:14:48 +0200
To: v6ops@ietf.org
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> <C34C198D-51F5-4189-8913-305733B6AA90@thehobsons.co.uk> <CAO42Z2wAKoyC0pssr9To+cAHavCMEZGh9FHb+yG7x8rWw5cU5g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <fdeaf91b-ce02-69e0-764a-fca7017c5b94@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2021 13:14:49 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAO42Z2wAKoyC0pssr9To+cAHavCMEZGh9FHb+yG7x8rWw5cU5g@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: fr
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/rS-JTx-074SfVvH1ylHfy46K8Z4>
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: Thu, 14 Oct 2021 11:14:56 -0000


Le 13/10/2021 à 23:16, Mark Smith a écrit :
> 
> 
> On Thu, 14 Oct 2021, 07:04 Simon, <linux@thehobsons.co.uk 
> <mailto:linux@thehobsons.co.uk>> wrote:
> 
> Owen DeLong <owen=40delong.com@dmarc.ietf.org 
> <mailto: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
> 
> 
> 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 
> v6ops@ietf.org <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org> 
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops 
> <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________ v6ops mailing list 
> v6ops@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>