Re: [v6ops] Implementation Status of PREF64

Alexandre Petrescu <> Thu, 14 October 2021 11:10 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CEF33A1371 for <>; Thu, 14 Oct 2021 04:10:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.667
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Xh5c2tYpANJM for <>; Thu, 14 Oct 2021 04:09:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 655A63A1372 for <>; Thu, 14 Oct 2021 04:09:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id 19EB9sGq023719 for <>; Thu, 14 Oct 2021 13:09:54 +0200
Received: from (localhost []) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 202FC2066A3 for <>; Thu, 14 Oct 2021 13:09:54 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16C34206669 for <>; Thu, 14 Oct 2021 13:09:54 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [] ( []) by (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id 19EB9r7L029874 for <>; Thu, 14 Oct 2021 13:09:54 +0200
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <YWcZ8ROAmbjVLNUJ@Space.Net> <> <> <>
From: Alexandre Petrescu <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2021 13:09:55 +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: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Language: fr
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Implementation Status of PREF64
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2021 11:10:02 -0000

Le 13/10/2021 à 22:00, STARK, BARBARA H a écrit :
>     >> The predictability of assigned/managed addresses is less a problem for your
>     >> arbitrary client/phone and more of an issue for the potential use case, for
>     >> example, of IoT/instrumentation devices where the endpoints are perceived
>     >> to need more active management than the typical phone.
>     > 
>     > And this is a typical role for an Android mobile device?
>     A lot of IOT development is using android as a base OS, yes.
>     Mobile device? Not necessarily, but lots of IoT with WiFi or
>     Ethernet only interfaces
>     do use android as a base OS.
>     > And this is so important that a general purpose mobile device can not do
>     > IA_NA/IA_TA, because some special-purpose IoT hub would need something
>     > else?
>     I think he’s arguing that android should do IA_NA/IA_TA not only
>     because of the
>     situations that desire it for general purpose mobile devices, but
>     also because
>     it’s even more important for IOT things that are being built on the
>     android platform.
>     I could be wrong, Clark can certainly correct me if I misunderstood
>     his concern.
>     Owen
> I can speak for Clark, but IOT and other things that are not general 
> purpose mobile devices are what I'm thinking about.
> <bhs> When I look at the Nook eReader that uses the Android OS, I notice 
> that it just references a bunch of Open Source Apache 2.0 licenses for 
> the Android OS components they use. To me, this says IoT devices are in 
> no way beholden to a Google app store or Google restrictions around what 
> goes into an Android smartphone. I see on 
> <> 
> that it says Android 10 included a DhcpClient component that “obtains IP 
> addresses from DHCP servers so they can be assigned to interfaces”. So 
> it sounds like IoT devices that use Android already have the ability (if 
> the manufacturer wants) to support IA_NA?

Supposedly that DHCP in Android is v4, not v6.

The use of that v4 feature has several implications:

- IoT on IPv4 is a widespread reality, even though IoT at IETF is a
   completely different thing.  It  might be that when computers move to
   IPv6 at that scale 'IoT' itself will no longer be a buzzword, long
   replaced by something else that uses IPv6.

- IoT Android routers with IPv4 necessarily use NAT, this NAT being a
   feature one would not like to see propagated in IPv6.  I think Lorenzo
   says that NAT66 might come to IPv6 IoT if DHCPv6 was used, so he
   advises to not use DHCPv6.  To that, I would say that NAT66 comes to
   IPv6 IoT already and it is because of the '/64' limit, or because of
   lack of the DHCPv6 feature in Android.

To bring IPv6 to Android to IoT routers one necessarily needs to get
away from the '/64' limit or to use DHCPv6 on Android.  Until then IoT
Android is IPv4, and IoT Android routers are NATs.


> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list