On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 10:25 PM, George, Wes <wesley.geo...@twcable.com> wrote:
> The reality is that this whole argument is needlessly conflating multiple > things in a way that isn't helpful, so I'm going to try to break this into > pieces in order to make forward progress and try to get us away from what > is devolving into a debate that is equal parts religion and kool-aid > drinking contest among IPv6 übernerds. > Thank you for trying to reword what I tried to express. Your assessment pretty much matches mine, except for the conclusion (see below). > So what this means is that there is a draft to be written about the need > for multiple address support on IPv6 networks for mobile devices, > enumerating the ways that they use those multiple addresses, and how it > differs from today's IPv4-only or dual-stack implementations, along with a > big discussion on the breakage that can happen on IPv6-only networks if a > device can't get the addresses it needs. It is a fool's errand to assume > that we can dictate one and only one solution to #5 (regardless of one's > perceived influence and market power), so the best we can do is to > document the preferred one(s) and hope that we've made a good enough case > or made them easy enough to use that the majority of network operators do > support them. > Sunset4 is the right place for that draft, so let's discuss it at the next > IETF. > Yep (but perhaps in v6ops instead of sunset4, see below). > However, the spectre of #4 does NOT mean that DHCPv6 is unusable because > it would break things today on a dual-stack network, so you need to stop > trying to imply that, and stop trying to optimize for use cases that you > yourself admit basically don't exist today by blocking support for > something that we could use today to have more devices using IPv6, were it > available. > I disagree with this part of the conclusion. I don't think it's a good plan to implement stateful DHCPv6 now and postpone the solution of the problem until IPv4 goes away many years from now. By then, a lot of water will have flowed under the bridge by then, and a lot of one-address-only networks will have been deployed and have moulded industry thinking. So, much as it pains me to stand in the way of IPv6 adoption - and you should how much I've tried to do on that front - I think that that wide deployment of one-address-per-device IPv6 might actually do more harm than good, and I expect that many operators who are going to require stateful DHCPv6 addressing are going to use it for one-address-per-device IPv6. I really think it's better if we get this right now, not kick the can down the road. That means we as an industry need to find a solution for IPv6 deployment in university/enterprise networks that does not devolve into one-address-per-device IPv6, *before* one-address-per-device IPv6 becomes universally implemented and usable.
