Re: [v6ops] Implementation Status of PREF64

Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> Thu, 14 October 2021 11:10 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 7CEF33A1371 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Oct 2021 04:10:01 -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 Xh5c2tYpANJM for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Oct 2021 04:09:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sainfoin-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr (sainfoin-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr [132.167.192.228]) (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 655A63A1372 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Oct 2021 04:09:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by sainfoin-sys.extra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id 19EB9sGq023719 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Oct 2021 13:09:54 +0200
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 202FC2066A3 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Oct 2021 13:09:54 +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 16C34206669 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Oct 2021 13:09:54 +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 19EB9r7L029874 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Oct 2021 13:09:54 +0200
To: v6ops@ietf.org
References: <1A6ED87B-666E-439C-852F-2E5C904C0515@delong.com> <CAKD1Yr23fY2DJDvB-9eVFRsxnBnZQ0kZuZfYUfRUHYW=_D=enA@mail.gmail.com> <CAN-Dau1z0q0R61x7iY+Wg_cFRU0jmqr+fR0y=bSXxj+K-n722w@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr1T_mXfxJGHOrBfqZfexm6GTrUqnFi57710pTroKQK6uQ@mail.gmail.com> <702CB018-1A02-4B32-B9AA-7C7B31521F12@delong.com> <CAKD1Yr0jZR8Efzr_Y6FeiBvHYS8ATmDupx2ABTXXy-rSA_QjmA@mail.gmail.com> <DM6PR02MB69249D4F0A8003E77EC9F153C3B19@DM6PR02MB6924.namprd02.prod.outlook.com> <CAN-Dau0q7p-9NWv=9vouX51Z1Yqe_h06WwpnkMjkyj6=A7EcQw@mail.gmail.com> <m1mZfPJ-0000IoC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <CADzU5g7z2eQAfa2F4yJb512UGVNVz=7q5ne565XEmb1bztJNeQ@mail.gmail.com> <YWcZ8ROAmbjVLNUJ@Space.Net> <421CFA29-B8CB-4714-8E0B-1713E979015D@delong.com> <CAN-Dau247p5+4pg0FRqMySkTmjANdwPSRU8k5sxhGc_Le_KyXA@mail.gmail.com> <DM6PR02MB6924A0436787246F9A01E78FC3B79@DM6PR02MB6924.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <78258a1d-8c96-5944-2afa-15524d998de5@gmail.com>
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: <DM6PR02MB6924A0436787246F9A01E78FC3B79@DM6PR02MB6924.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Language: fr
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/yr652UWe-JxkkuirNWo6UtWE5YA>
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 11:10:02 -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 
> https://source.android.com/devices/architecture/modular-system/networking <https://source.android.com/devices/architecture/modular-system/networking> 
> 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.

Alex

> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>