[180818] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Android (lack of) support for DHCPv6
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ted Hardie)
Wed Jun 10 17:57:30 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <5578ADEE.2080807@dougbarton.us>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 14:46:11 -0700
From: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
To: Doug Barton <dougb@dougbarton.us>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 2:36 PM, Doug Barton <dougb@dougbarton.us> wrote:
>
>
>>
>
> =E2=80=8BThe other option would, of course, be "bridging" plus IPv6 "NAT=
", 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 rabi=
d
> 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=8BSo, I don't think I'm particularly rabid about this, but I have de=
alt for
a long time on the application side with the side effects. Anyone who has
had to engineer a system that requires STUN/TURN/ICE can tell you that it
is pretty much a dancing bear. The wonder is how sweetly the bear dances,
but that it dances at all. If one of the things I'm tethering wants to do
RTCWEB, it's going to be painful if it doesn't have its own address,
because it will need to hairpin out to do STUN at the very least.=E2=80=8B
> =E2=80=8BBack to the question I asked before: does "static" solve the s=
tated
>> problems without "single"?
>>
>
> It *could*, but Lorenzo actually does have a point when he talks about no=
t
> wanting to cripple future application development. I'd also like to see a
> rough outline of an implementation before commenting further.
>
=E2=80=8BThat's fair enough, and some variability in what N is depending on=
device
is as a well. But understanding whether what we're actually looking for is
"static" or "single" is a pretty key piece of the requirements scoping, and
it sounds like "static" is it, at least from your perspective. Is that a
fair assessment?
regards,
Ted=E2=80=8B
>
> --
> I am conducting an experiment in the efficacy of PGP/MIME signatures. Thi=
s
> message should be signed. If it is not, or the signature does not validat=
e,
> please let me know how you received this message (direct, or to a list) a=
nd
> the mail software you use. Thanks!
>
>
