> From: Lorenzo Colitti > Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2015 7:49 PM > > That sounds pretty stupid even for me, so probably something got lost in > translation.
"Implementing stateful DHCPv6 would break planned use cases such as IPv6 tethering" "And it's not possible to enable tethering" "tethering cannot be made to work well" "what do you expect Android to do if given only one IPv6 address and the user turns on tethering" 'Saying "tethering is not available" is not going to fly' Yes, while you have mentioned a few other things, based on your postings on the issue thread tethering seems to be one of your hot topics. > I think what I said is that supporting DHCPv6-only networks will eventually > force > OS manufacturers to implement IPv6 NAT. As opposed to not supporting DHCPv6 operation forcing users to adopt phones based on operating systems other than android? > You don't "have to do" SLAAC and RDNSS. For as long as the network provides > IPv4, there won't be a problem for anyone. Thank you very much for being the guy in charge of determining what my problems are. As I already mentioned in the issue thread, one of our motivations for moving forward with IPv6 deployment is that some grants our faculty want to apply for require native IPv6 communication. So an android device that is incapable of connecting to our IPv6 network due to deficiencies in its implementation of IPv6 standards will not be usable for that grant work. But I will be sure to tell the faculty that the android developer responsible for that breakage assures them it is not a problem. After which I will encourage them to switch to another platform which provides for its users' needs rather than its developers' crusades.
