Then you need to be far more careful about what you say. When you said "Android would still not support..." you, very clearly, made a statement of product direction for a Google product. There is no other rational way to interpret your statement than to be a statement of Google's position.
-- Jeff On Jun 10, 2015 10:26 AM, Lorenzo Colitti <lore...@colitti.com> wrote: > > Ray, > > 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. > > Regards, > Lorenzo > > On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 12:15 AM, Ray Soucy <r...@maine.edu> wrote: > > > Respectfully disagree on all points. > > > > The statement that "Android would still not implement DHCPv6 NA, but it > > would implement DHCPv6 PD." is troubling because you're not even willing to > > entertain the idea for reasons that are rooted in idealism rather > > than pragmatism. > > > > Very disappointing to see that this is the position of Google. > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 10:58 AM, Lorenzo Colitti <lore...@colitti.com> > > wrote: > > > >> On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 10:06 PM, Ray Soucy <r...@maine.edu> wrote: > >> > >>> Actually we do support DHCPv6-PD, but Android doesn't even support > >>> DHCPv6 let alone PD, so that's the discussion here, isn't it? > >>> > >> > >> It is possible to implement DHCPv6 without implementing stateful address > >> assignment. > >> > >> If there were consensus that delegating a prefix of sufficient size via > >> DHCPv6 PD of a sufficient size is an acceptable substitute for stateful > >> IPv6 addressing in the environments that currently insist on stateful > >> DHCPv6 addressing, then it would make sense to implement it. In that > >> scenario, Android would still not implement DHCPv6 NA, but it would > >> implement DHCPv6 PD. > >> > >> What needs to be gauged about that course of action is how much consensus > >> would be achieved, whether network operators would actually use it (IPv6 > >> has a long and distinguished history of people claiming "I can't support > >> IPv6 until I get feature X", feature X appearing, and people changing > >> their > >> claim to "I can't support IPv6 until I get feature Y"), and how much of > >> this discussion would be put to bed. > >> > >> That course of action would seem most feasible if it were accompanied by > >> an IETF document that explained the deployment model and clarified what > >> "sufficient size" is. > >> > >> > >>> Universities see a constant stream of DMCA violation notices that need > >>> to be dealt with and not being able to associate a specific IPv6 address > >>> to > >>> a specific user is a big enough liability that the only option is to not > >>> use IPv6. > >>> > >> > >> It's not the *only* option. There are large networks - O(100k) IPv6 nodes > >> - that do ND monitoring for accountability, and it does work for them. > >> Many > >> devices support this via syslog, even. As you can imagine, my Android > >> device gets IPv6 at work, even though it doesn't support DHCPv6. Other > >> universities, too. It's obviously not your chosen or preferred mechanism, > >> but it does work. > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Ray Patrick Soucy > > Network Engineer > > University of Maine System > > > > T: 207-561-3526 > > F: 207-561-3531 > > > > MaineREN, Maine's Research and Education Network > > www.maineren.net > >
