Android (lack of) support for DHCPv6

[dougb at dougbarton.us (Doug Barton)]

On 6/10/15 2:27 PM, Ted Hardie wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 2:16 PM, Doug Barton <dougb at dougbarton.us
> <mailto:dougb at dougbarton.us>> wrote:
>
>     On 6/10/15 2:00 PM, Ted Hardie wrote:
>
>         Lorenzo has detailed why N=1 doesn't work for devices that need
>         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 any
>     chance of working.
>
>         or which might want to tether other devices;
>
>
>     ... and this argument has been refuted by the word "bridging."
>
>
> ?To repeat Valdis' question:?
>
>     ?And the router knows to send to the "front" address to reach 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.  :)?

I saw that, he was refuted by others, most notably by the simple fact 
that bridging works now in IPv4, so obviously there is a way to make it 
work.

I think PD is the right answer here of course, but that doesn't mean 
that bridging is the wrong answer.

> ?The other option would, of course, be "bridging" plus IPv6 "NAT", and I
> assume you see the issues there.?

No, actually I don't. I realize that you and Lorenzo are part of the 
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.

> ?Back 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 
not wanting to cripple future application development. I'd also like to 
see a rough outline of an implementation before commenting further.

Meanwhile, DHCPv6 + PD solves all of Lorenzo's stated problems, but he 
won't implement it because "DHCP." That's not something you can engineer 
around.

Doug

-- 
I am conducting an experiment in the efficacy of PGP/MIME signatures. 
This message should be signed. If it is not, or the signature does not 
validate, please let me know how you received this message (direct, or 
to a list) and the mail software you use. Thanks!

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 473 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20150610/a3139ed9/attachment.pgp>