[180748] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Android (lack of) support for DHCPv6
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jared Mauch)
Wed Jun 10 08:21:21 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAKGbBmmYi3h9sSJgjfg4fvaJDtwa+H_7Ava_XMkK+rdaC5hOdw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 08:15:54 -0400
To: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@colitti.com>
Cc: NANOG List <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
> On Jun 10, 2015, at 8:06 AM, Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@colitti.com> =
wrote:
>=20
> On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 8:30 PM, Karl Auer <kauer@biplane.com.au> =
wrote:
>=20
>> Seems to me that N will vary depending on what you are trying to do.
>=20
>=20
> Remember, what I'm trying to do is avoid user-visible regressions =
while
> getting rid of NAT. Today in IPv4, tethering just works, period. No =
ifs, no
> buts, no requests to the network. The user turns it on, and it works.
> IPv4-only apps always work.
>=20
> A model where the device has to request resources from the network =
before
> enabling tethering, or before supporting IPv4-only apps, provides a =
much
> worse user experience. The user might have to wait a long time, or the
> operation might even fail.
Sure, but when you take a NAT and replace it with no-NAT there will be =
no-NAT regressions as a result.
Perhaps doing 66 w/ ULA would provide a comparable experience?
IPv4 and IPv6 are enough alike that 99% of things =E2=80=9Cjust work=E2=80=
=9D but it=E2=80=99s in the 1% of ARP v NDP, is what we=E2=80=99re =
talking about here.
- Jared=
