Re: [v6ops] Implementation Status of PREF64

Simon <linux@thehobsons.co.uk> Fri, 15 October 2021 14:17 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 D46113A088D for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Oct 2021 07:17:42 -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 AcVp-CPazLcQ for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Oct 2021 07:17:37 -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 A61D33A087F for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Oct 2021 07:17:36 -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 DE099104001 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Oct 2021 14:17:30 +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: Fri, 15 Oct 2021 15:17:30 +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> <C34C198D-51F5-4189-8913-305733B6AA90@thehobsons.co.uk> <CAO42Z2wAKoyC0pssr9To+cAHavCMEZGh9FHb+yG7x8rWw5cU5g@mail.gmail.com> <CAN-Dau2medOLeCFCpSuUC9f+=Dn-kf8uN5RnkFKTS1T7uj9SUQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: v6ops list <v6ops@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAN-Dau2medOLeCFCpSuUC9f+=Dn-kf8uN5RnkFKTS1T7uj9SUQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-Id: <6693BB0F-76E6-44B7-BCC3-99BF6FC6DACA@thehobsons.co.uk>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.120.0.1.13)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/uo_K41ck4ePe0tO4G5h4B51q9PY>
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: Fri, 15 Oct 2021 14:17:43 -0000

David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu> wrote:

>>> Not to put too fine a point on it, but I have seen no argument against Android including standards compliance

> Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com> wrote:
>> DHCPv6 is not required. See BCP 220.

I actually had in mind a comment made some way up the thread that Android ignores the A bit in RAs. If so then that’s a blatant violation, not just of the standard, but also of the wishes/policies of network operators who may be fully within both the letter and spirit of RFCs/BCPs.

> Yes, DHCPv6 is not required for hosts to implement, but it is recommended by RFC8504/BCP220

"Consequently, all hosts SHOULD implement address configuration via DHCPv6”
This, and the text leading up to it is very clear - if you value interoperability at all then implement DHCPv6 client on your devices.

> But then again, networks providing general propose hosts with more than one IPv6 address is not required and is also only recommended by RFC7934/BCP204.
> 
> So I think we have a standoff or deadlock, can we find a way to break it? How about we all agree to implement the IETF's recommendations in both cases? 
> 
> Personally, I think they are both very good recommendations.

Agreed. It does seem quite simple really. So why is it so hard ?

Simon