[180899] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Android (lack of) support for DHCPv6
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Laszlo Hanyecz)
Thu Jun 11 22:07:30 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Laszlo Hanyecz <laszlo@heliacal.net>
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 02:07:22 +0000
To: "nanog@nanog.org list" <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <CALFTrnPty9TjcAMkzbQUURx0gHupUPjyxB4m=X3xDvWGxbrywQ@mail.gmail.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Jun 12, 2015, at 12:51 AM, Ray Soucy <rps@maine.edu> wrote:
> That's really not the case at all. =20
>=20
> You're just projecting your own views about not thinking DHCPv6 is =
valid and making yourself and Lorenzo out to be the some sort of victims =
of NANOG and the ...=20
>=20
DHCPv6 and Android are just collateral damage here but I think the =
argument is about steering what the generally accepted form of "end user =
IPv6 on WiFi" will be. It would be great if we could agree on that so =
we don't all have to write support for many different ways and provide =
complicated user interfaces for configuring it, right? Plug and play?
> > university net nazis
>=20
> Did you really just write that? =20
>=20
As far as "net nazi", I meant it in the same sense as a BOFH. Someone =
who is intentionally degrading a user's experience by using technical =
means to block specifically targeted applications or behaviors. And =
"angry old men" is also not a literal meaning, but an observation of how =
this has turned into a flame war where it's a lot of seemingly angry =
people mobbing the Android developer.
> What we're arguing for here is choice, the exact opposite of the =
association you're trying to make here. It's incredibly poor taste to =
throw that term around in this context, and adds nothing to the =
discussion.
>=20
> People are not logical. They adopt a position and then look for =
information to support it rather than counter it; they even go as far as =
to ignore or dismiss relevant information in the face of logic. That's =
religion. And this entire discussion continues to be rooted in religion =
rather than pragmatism.
>=20
> DHCPv6 is a tool, just as SLAAC is a tool. IPv6 was designed to =
support both options because they both have valid use cases. Please =
allow network operators to use the best tool for the job instead of =
telling us all we're required to do it your way (can you even see how =
ridiculous this whole "nazi" name calling is given the position you're =
taking)
Without getting into all the "actually there is edge case X" =
discussions, when you connect to a WiFi network at an office, home or =
public place today, it's pretty 'standard' to find a DHCP server handing =
out rfc1918 IPv4 addresses, recursive name servers, and the network =
doing some form of NAT or proxying. This is pretty much what we expect =
when we open up a laptop and connect to a network, and if it doesn't =
work we call the help desk and ask why it doesn't do what we expect. =
Every user application that wants to do peer to peer networking has to =
come up with some complicated workaround to communicate through the =
various forms of NAT and proxies.
What do we expect to happen with regard to IPv6? I think it would be =
great if end to end connectivity was common enough that application =
developers could assume it will be there, and avoid having to do those =
workarounds. On the other hand, if it becomes common and acceptable to =
use DHCPv6 to provide a single address only, then applications will just =
circumvent it once again with things like NAT, VPNs and reflector =
servers, which actually makes it worse for everyone involved.
>=20
> You don't get to just say "I'm not going to implement this because I =
don't agree with it," which is what Google is doing in the case of =
Android.
>=20
> The reason Lorenzo has triggered such a backlash on NANOG is that is =
fundamental argument on why he doesn't see DHCPv6 as valid for the =
Android is quite frankly a very weak argument at best. If you're going =
to stand up and say you're not going to do what everyone else has =
already done, especially when it comes to implementation of fundamental =
standards that everything depends upon, you need to have a better reason =
for it than the one Lorenzo provided.
>=20
It seems like several people have taken the position that they will use =
their influence to steer others away from Android because it doesn't =
work with their chosen network configuration. This to me sounds very =
much like Android taking the position that the network should support =
their chosen address configuration protocol instead of that other one. =
I think in the end we're going to find that both the network side and =
the client side end up having to support the whole matrix of possible =
configurations, if the end goal is to provide a good user experience, =
but this is not a good OS developer and network operator experience =
because it creates more work for everyone and more trouble for users =
when the complicated workarounds don't work.
-Laszlo
> I honestly hope he collects himself and takes the time to respond, =
because it really is a problem.
>=20
> As much as you may not want DHCPv6 to be a thing, it's already a =
thing.
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 7:42 PM, Laszlo Hanyecz <laszlo@heliacal.net> =
wrote:
> Lorzenzo is probably not going to post anymore because of this.
>=20
> It looks to me like Lorenzo wants the same thing as most everyone =
here, aside from the university net nazis, and he's got some balls to =
come defend his position against the angry old men of NANOG. Perhaps =
the approach of attacking DHCP is not the right one, but it sounds like =
his goal is to make IPv6 better than how IPv4 turned out.
>=20
> Things like privacy extensions, multiple addresses and PD are great =
because they make it harder for people to do address based tracking, =
which is generally regarded as a desirable feature except by the people =
who want to do the tracking. DHCPv6 is a crutch that allows operators =
to simply implement IPv6 with all the same hacks as IPv4 and continue to =
do address based access control, tracking, etc. It's like a 'goto' =
statement - it can be used to do clever things, but it can also be used =
to hack stuff and create very hard to fix problems down the road. I =
think what Lorenzo is trying to do is to use his influence/position to =
forcefully prevent people from doing this, and while that may not be the =
most diplomatic way, I admire his courage in posting here and trying to =
reason with the mob.
>=20
> -Laszlo
>=20
>=20
> On Jun 10, 2015, at 10:24 PM, Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> wrote:
>=20
> > On 06/10/2015 02:51 PM, Paul B. Henson wrote:
> >>> From: Lorenzo Colitti
> >>> Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 8:27 AM
> >>>
> >>> please do not construe my words on this thread as being Google's =
position
> >>> on anything. These messages were sent from my personal email =
address, and I
> >>> do not speak for my employer.
> >> Can we construe your postings on the issue thread as being Google =
and/or Androids official position? They are posted by lorenzo@google.com =
with a tag of "Project Member", and I believe you also declined the =
request in the issue under that mantle.
> >>
> >>
> > Oh, stop this. The only thing this will accomplish is a giant black =
hole of silence from anybody at Google and any other $MEGACORP
> > in a similar situation.
> >
> > Mike
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> --=20
> Ray Patrick Soucy
> Network Engineer
> University of Maine System
>=20
> T: 207-561-3526
> F: 207-561-3531
>=20
> MaineREN, Maine's Research and Education Network
> www.maineren.net
