[180901] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Android (lack of) support for DHCPv6
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Laszlo Hanyecz)
Thu Jun 11 22:31:44 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Laszlo Hanyecz <laszlo@heliacal.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAEmG1=rCR7LXTs6j86f=rXB0QgLEBhPaSH4zbjeY8eD+vwYqKQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 02:31:37 +0000
To: Matthew Petach <mpetach@netflight.com>
Cc: NANOG List <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
"Your phone doesn't work with our network, so you should buy one that =
does"
vs
"Hey we can't connect, fix your network"
Kind of similar to the streaming video vs eyeball network thing.. =
blaming the bad user experience on the other guy.
-Laszlo
On Jun 12, 2015, at 2:18 AM, Matthew Petach <mpetach@netflight.com> =
wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 8:26 AM, Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@colitti.com> =
wrote:
>> Ray,
>>=20
>> 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.
>>=20
>> Regards,
>> Lorenzo
>=20
>=20
> Ah, Lorenzo, Lorenzo...
>=20
> I was going to just let the thread go quietly by until you pulled
> out the "I'm not speaking for my employer" card. :(
>=20
> Can we take what you posted here
> https://code.google.com/p/android/issues/detail?id=3D32621#c53
> from your google.com account to be official Google
> position, when you closed the issue requesting DHCPv6
> support as "Declined?"
>=20
> Again, in comment #109
> https://code.google.com/p/android/issues/detail?id=3D32621#c109
> you speak from your Google.com account when you repeat
> *twice* the position that you won't support stateful DHCPv6:
> "and not via stateful DHCPv6 address assignment" followed by
> "while continuing not to support DHCPv6 address assignment."
>=20
> It's hard to not see _that_ as being Google's position, when you
> post it from your google.com account in response to an issue raised
> about broken functionality on the Android platform. So perhaps
> you're right, and the words you use on _this_ thread are your
> personal opinion; unfortunately, they seem to be the same
> words and opinions you use from your google.com account when
> denying input from Android users who don't seem to want
> their devices to be crippled by incomplete DHCPv6 support.
>=20
> I wonder at what point large enterprises will simply say
> "sorry, without working DHCPv6 support, Android devices
> will not be supported on this network"--at which point this
> will stop being a religious issue, and will shift to being a
> business issue, as Google will have to decide whether
> being stubbornly dogmatic while losing large customers
> is worth it or not.
>=20
> Thanks!
>=20
> Matt
>=20
> PS--just because some poor unfortunate soul found a
> way to scrape neighbor tables to work around the lack
> of DHCPv6 lease logs does *not* make it a practical
> or wise alternative. A certain network has been trying
> to test out that workaround, and every time they scrape
> the neighbor table, the CPU on the routers pegs at 100%.
>=20
> PPS--I am likewise posting this from my personal
> account (which is still running an old enough Cisco
> image that it pre-dates IPv6 support entirely, making
> most of this a moot point for me personally). The
> opinions expressed here are purely my own, and
> should in no way be construed to apply to anyone
> but myself, and possibly the mice living in the garage.
