[180703] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Android (lack of) support for DHCPv6
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Christopher Morrow)
Tue Jun 9 23:40:22 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <20150610031454.GH999@cmadams.net>
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2015 23:37:11 -0400
From: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com>
To: nanog list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 11:14 PM, Chris Adams <cma@cmadams.net> wrote:
> Once upon a time, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu <Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu> said:
>> On Wed, 10 Jun 2015 12:59:47 +1000, Karl Auer said:
>> > Hope the question doesn't make me look like an idiot, but why does using
>> > stateful DHCPv6 mean having to go back to NAT?
>>
>> How does the device ask for a *second* DHCPv6'ed address for tethering or
>> whatever?
>
> It's called "bridging". Let whatever is being tethered ask directly for
> its own address.
it remains to be seen if that would actually work, and it's probably
network-dependent, right? If your notional network implemented SAVI
restrictions then a single dhcpv6 assigned address might be all you
get.
A bunch of this discussion (on both sides) seems (to me) get get back to:
"I designed something, took a left turn and kept on driving.... and
I just don't want to revisit assumptions."
Example: "I do not want to support SLAAC because I don't want to do
RDNSS, I will provide dns servers/etc via dhcpv6"
Example: "We will not support DHCPv6 because people might assign one
address only."
Both of those have a way to a solution, neither has to be a hard/fast
rule, right?
