On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 9:03 PM Nick Hilliard <[email protected]> wrote:
> - politics: probably the most contentious area. One well-known example > is how ipv6 on cellular impacts carrier vs handset control politics. > 3GPP specifies that the ppp context for tethering must support SLAAC and > therefore it provides a /64 for LAN connectivity. This means that the > handset applications have as much address space as they need. The > argument goes that if DHCPv6 were a viable option for this, then the > mobile operators would effectively wrestle control of the applications > running on the handset (and ultimately control of the handset > capabilities itself away from the handset software vendors) by handing > control of the number of available IPv6 addresses to the cellular > operator. This is, at least, the reason cited by the Android authors > for the point-blank refusal to implement DHCPv6 in android (bug ID > 32621). This argument has been carried into the IETF on the basis that > any attempt to make dhcpv6 a standalone protocol should be resisted in > all cases because this will hand too much control over to the operator - > never mind the fact that it is arguably only relevant on cellular > connections, which are defined by 3GPP rather than the IETF. > FWIW I think you're misreading that issue. The actual arguments against IA_NA are stated in RFC 7934. They don't have much or anything to do with mobile networks, who have widely deployed (and, as far as I can tell, are happy with) SLAAC.
