[180815] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Android (lack of) support for DHCPv6
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Doug Barton)
Wed Jun 10 17:46:57 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 14:36:46 -0700
From: Doug Barton <dougb@dougbarton.us>
To: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+9kkMAmPkhKfUwVwEJf-6oG+o02k=WBpRROAFzFx8cL_C2etA@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156)
--kni04w4GBbNJmsHPR11iKCu4UAgaKF6sf
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On 6/10/15 2:27 PM, Ted Hardie wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 2:16 PM, Doug Barton <dougb@dougbarton.us
> <mailto:dougb@dougbarton.us>> wrote:
>
> On 6/10/15 2:00 PM, Ted Hardie wrote:
>
> Lorenzo has detailed why N=3D1 doesn't work for devices that ne=
ed
> to use xlat
>
>
> ... and it's been well demonstrated that this is a red herring
> argument since the provider has to configure xlat for it to have an=
y
> chance of working.
>
> or which might want to tether other devices;
>
>
> ... and this argument has been refuted by the word "bridging."
>
>
> =E2=80=8BTo repeat Valdis' question:=E2=80=8B
>
> =E2=80=8BAnd the router knows to send to the "front" address to rea=
ch the
> "back" address, how, exactly? Seems like somebody should invent a
> way to assign a prefix to the front address that it can delegate to=
> things behind it. :)=E2=80=8B
I saw that, he was refuted by others, most notably by the simple fact=20
that bridging works now in IPv4, so obviously there is a way to make it=20
work.
I think PD is the right answer here of course, but that doesn't mean=20
that bridging is the wrong answer.
> =E2=80=8BThe other option would, of course, be "bridging" plus IPv6 "NA=
T", and I
> assume you see the issues there.=E2=80=8B
No, actually I don't. I realize that you and Lorenzo are part of the=20
rabid NAT-hating crowd, but I'm not. I don't think it's the right answer =
here, but I don't think it's automatically a problem either.
> =E2=80=8BBack to the question I asked before: does "static" solve the =
stated
> problems without "single"?
It *could*, but Lorenzo actually does have a point when he talks about=20
not wanting to cripple future application development. I'd also like to=20
see a rough outline of an implementation before commenting further.
Meanwhile, DHCPv6 + PD solves all of Lorenzo's stated problems, but he=20
won't implement it because "DHCP." That's not something you can engineer =
around.
Doug
--=20
I am conducting an experiment in the efficacy of PGP/MIME signatures.=20
This message should be signed. If it is not, or the signature does not=20
validate, please let me know how you received this message (direct, or=20
to a list) and the mail software you use. Thanks!
--kni04w4GBbNJmsHPR11iKCu4UAgaKF6sf
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJVeK3vAAoJEFzGhvEaGryEVPoH/i6IPQWbFtkcc71NP4hv5ZuR
F7yGr5FxSznQtsCI63NWEJTIUxIqCFbrAuT/u4UIblWBSS9SbLywjs8/JTJxJzMI
HqzP76A9a+/DUePyMSoFnjU/2drj9+P6gKZkGtnpEXT8aoZAdTbP78qMz7B7WUl/
olNSTdkx/SbfFE5kLXwuXkWtIw6YRQ3nmrXKa+j0XrHfayqlJVWhOxltNz7+TnKq
mZrm5i+Y24Wy1Ix9ZsjW/zNpuWw2chTxEWjt5bMoHlDnqLkTrwhWyWcnmwgkLhyC
iJtEsM/4PRmsQpZKLqNZwa3CGsJkx15XbELZP33xglX0jcVaDnc1pxAPdtLWRU0=
=1MVq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--kni04w4GBbNJmsHPR11iKCu4UAgaKF6sf--
