Re: Android (lack of) support for DHCPv6

On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 3:49 PM, Jon Bane wrote: > Seriously, this is how you are going to respond? You are claiming you > know what is best for everyone and I am telling you that I know is best for > MY network. Who are you to even begin to understand my requirement or > presume to know them be

RE: Android (lack of) support for DHCPv6

On Tue, 9 Jun 2015, Tony Hain wrote: I filed a platform bug on this back in the ICS timeframe, and it still persists. As I recall, there are 2 flags provided by the OS related to RA handling. Rather than using the one that sets a preference between the Cell vs. Wifi interface, at least Samsung (

Re: Android (lack of) support for DHCPv6

On Tue, 9 Jun 2015, Jon Bane wrote: Seriously, this is how you are going to respond? You are claiming you know what is best for everyone and I am telling you that I know is best for MY network. Who are you to even begin to understand my requirement or presume to know them better? seriously?

Re: Android (lack of) support for DHCPv6

On Wed, 2015-06-10 at 15:32 +0900, Lorenzo Colitti wrote: > It's certainly possible to make Android request N IPv6 addresses via > DHCPv6, and not accept the offer if it is offered fewer than N addresses. > But that only really makes sense if there's a generally-agreed upon minimum > value of N. I'

RE: Android (lack of) support for DHCPv6

From: Lorenzo Colitti [mailto:lore...@colitti.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2015 11:47 PM To: Tony Hain Cc: Mikael Abrahamsson; Chris Adams; NANOG Subject: Re: Android (lack of) support for DHCPv6 On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 3:38 PM, Tony Hain wrote:I claim that there is a platform bug, because th

Re: Android (lack of) support for DHCPv6

Hi, > No, the premise is that from a user's point of view, DHCPv6-only networks what about DHCPv6 for IPv6 and DHCP for IPv4 - the client should still be able to pick up an IPv6 addressinstead of forcing the only option to be SLAAC ? alan

Re: Android (lack of) support for DHCPv6

On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 02:56:26PM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote: > Further, the cellular companies would do well to be more adaptive to the > capabilities that exist in the hardware rather than insisting that they > choose the solution and the hardware makers must adapt. Hahahahahaha! Fun fill in the

Re: grepcidr 2.99

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 In article <6dfdc9f9-ee28-4263-8e5b-eb751b35b...@dataix.net> you write: >-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- >Hash: SHA256 > >Hi John, > >Great contribution. Thanks > >Might I make a suggestion? with the following command it gives Invalid CIDR. In >my u

Re: Android (lack of) support for DHCPv6

Hi Lorenzo, > It's certainly possible to make Android request N IPv6 addresses via > DHCPv6, and not accept the offer if it is offered fewer than N addresses. > But that only really makes sense if there's a generally-agreed upon minimum > value of N. I'd be happy to work with people on an Internet

Re: Android (lack of) support for DHCPv6

Hi, > Asking for more addresses when the user tries to enable features such as > tethering, waiting for the network to reply, and disabling the features if > the network does not provide the necessary addresses does not seem like it > would provide a good user experience. talking of the user expe

Re: Android (lack of) support for DHCPv6

We use DHCPv6 to assign just one IP address to the CPE. This is because otherwise our routers do not know where to route the /48 that is also passed along with DHCPv6-PD. The routers are stupid I know, but it is what we got. So we simply implemented a variant of static routes for 2001:db8:x::/48 t

Re: Android (lack of) support for DHCPv6

On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 10:31:25AM +0200, Sander Steffann wrote: > I don't think it is unreasonable. If the network doesn't support the > features you need then let the user know (grey out the feature and add a > note that says "broken network"). It will put pressure on the network > department to

Re: Android (lack of) support for DHCPv6

On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 4:13 PM, Karl Auer wrote: > You need as many as you need. Request them. Worry about it if you don't > get them. This is exactly what happens when N=1, BTW. A DHCPv6 server is > almost certainly not going to have an upper limit that significantly > crimps your style... Ok

Re: Android (lack of) support for DHCPv6

On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 5:31 PM, Sander Steffann wrote: > I can also see more deployment issues (much more state in the routers for > all those PDs, needing huge amounts of /64s (or larger) to be able to deal > with a few hundred/thousand clients) but it would be very nice if this was > possible

Re: most accurate geo-IP source to build country-based access lists

Years ago when meeting with the lawyers to talk about the need to block access to a list of websites I was coming from the technical side and talking about how all of our possible solutions were incomplete and easily circumvented by our users. The lawyers' response was to explain the concept of go

Re: Android (lack of) support for DHCPv6

On Wed, 2015-06-10 at 19:49 +0900, Lorenzo Colitti wrote: > Question for everyone on this thread that has said that DHCPv6 NA is a > requirement: suppose that Android supported stateful DHCPv6 addressing, > requested a number of addresses, and did not use any of them if the number > of addresses re

Re: Android (lack of) support for DHCPv6

So here is the thing. You can try to use enhanced functionality which depends on multiple addresses as justification for saying DHCPv6 is not supported. In practice, your device will just not be supported. As you pointed out, there isn't anything that forces adoption of IPv6 right now. If your

Re: Android (lack of) support for DHCPv6

Hi, > Ok, let's see how that goes, even among the few people on this thread. > > Question for everyone on this thread that has said that DHCPv6 NA is a > requirement: suppose that Android supported stateful DHCPv6 addressing, > requested a number of addresses, and did not use any of them if the n

RE: Routing Insecurity (Re: BGP in the Washington Post)

> > Crypto = more overhead. Less priority to crypto plus DDoS = routing > > update issues. > > I don't think there's an update issue here. The crypto verification is > probably > going to be deferred in addition to being low priority. If I understand it > correctly, this means that a route can

Lists of VPN exit addresses?

Does anyone keep lists of the exit addresses of public VPN services? I presume there is no need to explain why this would be of interest. R's, John

Re: Android (lack of) support for DHCPv6

On Wed, 10 Jun 2015, Baldur Norddahl wrote: We use DHCPv6 to assign just one IP address to the CPE. This is because otherwise our routers do not know where to route the /48 that is also passed along with DHCPv6-PD. If you use DHCPv6-PD you only need a LL address, you do not need a GUA address

Re: Android (lack of) support for DHCPv6

On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 8:30 PM, Karl Auer wrote: > Seems to me that N will vary depending on what you are trying to do. Remember, what I'm trying to do is avoid user-visible regressions while getting rid of NAT. Today in IPv4, tethering just works, period. No ifs, no buts, no requests to the n

Re: Lists of VPN exit addresses?

On 10 Jun 2015, at 18:56, John Levine wrote: I presume there is no need to explain why this would be of interest. To keep consumers who've legitimately purchased/rented/subscribed to content from accessing same when they travel internationally? Because as a regular international traveler,

Re: Routing Insecurity (Re: BGP in the Washington Post)

> The keys are per router, not per AS. rtfm. bgpsec key aggregation is at the descretion of the operator. they could use one key to cover 42 ASs. randy

Re: Android (lack of) support for DHCPv6

On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 2:06 PM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote: > On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 8:30 PM, Karl Auer wrote: > > > Seems to me that N will vary depending on what you are trying to do. > > > Remember, what I'm trying to do is avoid user-visible regressions while > getting rid of NAT. Today in IPv4

Re: Android (lack of) support for DHCPv6

> On Jun 10, 2015, at 8:06 AM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 8:30 PM, Karl Auer wrote: > >> Seems to me that N will vary depending on what you are trying to do. > > > Remember, what I'm trying to do is avoid user-visible regressions while > getting rid of NAT. Today in I

Re: Android (lack of) support for DHCPv6

On Wed, 2015-06-10 at 21:06 +0900, Lorenzo Colitti wrote: > On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 8:30 PM, Karl Auer wrote: > > Seems to me that N will vary depending on what you are trying to do. > A model where the device has to request resources from the network before > enabling tethering, or before support

Re: Lists of VPN exit addresses?

> On Jun 10, 2015, at 8:08 AM, Roland Dobbins wrote: > > > On 10 Jun 2015, at 18:56, John Levine wrote: > >> I presume there is no need to explain why this would be of interest. > > To keep consumers who've legitimately purchased/rented/subscribed to content > from accessing same when they t

Re: Android (lack of) support for DHCPv6

On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 8:35 PM, Ray Soucy wrote: > In practice, your device will just not be supported. > > As you pointed out, there isn't anything that forces adoption of IPv6 > right now. > It's certainly a possibility for both sides in this debate to say "my way or the highway", and wait an

Re: Android (lack of) support for DHCPv6

* Lorenzo Colitti > Remember, what I'm trying to do is avoid user-visible regressions > while getting rid of NAT. Today in IPv4, tethering just works, > period. No ifs, no buts, no requests to the network. The user turns > it on, and it works. *cough* https://code.google.com/p/android/issues/det

Re: Android (lack of) support for DHCPv6

On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 9:31 PM, Tore Anderson wrote: > In particular comment 105 is illuminating. Android is apparently fully > on-board with mobile carriers' desire to break tethering, even going so > far as to implement a feature whose *sole purpose* is to break > thethering. > > Yet, at the s

Re: Android (lack of) support for DHCPv6

Once upon a time, Lorenzo Colitti said: > Remember, what I'm trying to do is avoid user-visible regressions while > getting rid of NAT. Today in IPv4, tethering just works, period. No ifs, no > buts, no requests to the network. The user turns it on, and it works. > IPv4-only apps always work. Exc

Re: Android (lack of) support for DHCPv6

> On Jun 10, 2015, at 8:48 AM, Chris Adams wrote: > > Except for the ones that don't. Tethering is far from "just works, > period." VPNs, VOIP, and games are things that don't always just work > (behind any kind of NAT). Please don’t bring facts into a discussion about ideologies of IPv6.

Re: Android (lack of) support for DHCPv6

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? As for thinking "long term" and "the future", we need devices to work within current models of IPv6 to accelerate _adoption_ of IPv6 _today_ before we can get to that fu

Re: Android (lack of) support for DHCPv6

On 10 June 2015 at 14:03, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > On Wed, 10 Jun 2015, Baldur Norddahl wrote: > > We use DHCPv6 to assign just one IP address to the CPE. This is because >> otherwise our routers do not know where to route the /48 that is also >> passed along with DHCPv6-PD. >> > > If you use

Re: eBay is looking for network heavies...

- Original Message - > From: "Shane Ronan" > When I was asked the default BGP timers across three different vendor > platforms as measure of my networking ability during an interview, I > replied saying I'd look them up if needed them. > > I was told I didn't understand BGP in enough det

RE: Routing Insecurity (Re: BGP in the Washington Post)

> rtfm. bgpsec key aggregation is at the descretion of the operator. > they could use one key to cover 42 ASs. I've been reading the presentations and the mailing lists, both of which imply you should use one key per router for security reasons. I would tend to agree with that assessment, BTW.

Re: Android (lack of) support for DHCPv6

On 6/9/15, 11:01 PM, "Lorenzo Colitti" wrote: >No, the premise is that from a user's point of view, DHCPv6-only networks >cause regressions in functionality compared to IPv4-only or dual-stack >networks. For example: IPv4 apps cannot be supported at all due because >464xlat cannot be made to wor

Re: Android (lack of) support for DHCPv6

On 6/9/15, 11:06 PM, "Lorenzo Colitti" wrote: >Based on the facts, you could could just as well say that Apple is trying >to advance the state of the art by refusing to provide suboptimal 464xlat >and insisting instead that developers support IPv6-only networks as >first-class citizens: > >https

Re: Routing Insecurity (Re: BGP in the Washington Post)

>> rtfm. bgpsec key aggregation is at the descretion of the operator. >> they could use one key to cover 42 ASs. > > I've been reading the presentations and the mailing lists, both of > which imply you should use one key per router for security reasons. > I would tend to agree with that assessmen

RE: Routing Insecurity (Re: BGP in the Washington Post)

> folk have different threat models. yours (and mine) may be propagation of > router compromise. for others, it might be a subtle increase in disclosure of > router links. contrary to your original assertion, the protocol supports both. The increased disclosure is not "subtle." The alternate -

OT Fiber contractors?

I have a client needs a couple outside under-parkinglot runs installed*, and I'm so long out of that market I have no idea where to go. Offlist recs for Tampa metro cheerfully accepted. :-) Cheers, -- jra [ * Pulled and terminated; we'll supply the switches and do the interconnect ] -- Jay R.

Re: Android (lack of) support for DHCPv6

On 6/10/15, 2:32 AM, "Lorenzo Colitti" wrote: >I'd be happy to work with people on an Internet draft or other >standard to define a minimum value for N, but I fear that it may not >possible to gain consensus on that. WG] No, I think that the document you need to write is the one that explains w

Re: Android (lack of) support for DHCPv6

On Wed, 10 Jun 2015, Baldur Norddahl wrote: I need the GUA to have a stable and predictable next hop for my static route of the /48 prefix delegation. What standard exactly requires my router to be able to snoop a DHCP-PD to create routes dynamically? That was left out and one solution is the o

Re: Android (lack of) support for DHCPv6

The whole conversation is around 464XLAT on IPv6-only networks right? We're going to be dual-stack for a while IMHO, and by the time we can get away with IPv6 only for WiFi, 464 should no longer be relevant because we'll have widespread IPv6 adoption by then. Carriers can do IPv6 only because they

Re: Android (lack of) support for DHCPv6

On 6/10/15, 9:13 AM, "Baldur Norddahl" wrote: >What standard exactly requires my router to be able to snoop a DHCP-PD to >create routes dynamically? That was left out and one solution is the one >we >use. WG] We use this in cable-land, so it's definitely documented in the DOCSIS standards. Not

RE: Access to nanog.cluepon.net

I see that nanog.cluepon.net is still down – is Richard S. *the* person for this? Frank From: Mike Hammett [mailto:na...@ics-il.net] Sent: Monday, June 08, 2015 1:47 PM To: Josh Luthman Cc: NANOG list; Frank Bulk Subject: Re: Access to nanog.cluepon.net Still down here (and apparently

Re: Android (lack of) support for DHCPv6

On Wed, 10 Jun 2015, George, Wes wrote: On 6/10/15, 9:13 AM, "Baldur Norddahl" wrote: What standard exactly requires my router to be able to snoop a DHCP-PD to create routes dynamically? That was left out and one solution is the one we use. WG] We use this in cable-land, so it's definitely

Re: Android (lack of) support for DHCPv6

On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 10:06 PM, Ray Soucy 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

Re: Android (lack of) support for DHCPv6

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 tha

Re: Android (lack of) support for DHCPv6

On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 10:25 PM, George, Wes 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

Re: Android (lack of) support for DHCPv6

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 wrote: > Respectfully disagree on all points. >

Re: Android (lack of) support for DHCPv6

Lorenzo Colitti wrote: > 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'

Re: Android (lack of) support for DHCPv6

* Lorenzo Colitti > Tethering is just one example that we know about today. Another example is > 464xlat. You can't do 464XLAT without the network operator's help anyway (unless you/Google is planning on hosting a public NAT64 service?). If the network operator actively wants 464XLAT to be used,

Re: Android (lack of) support for DHCPv6

On 10 June 2015 at 15:53, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > > Well, then you're not doing what most people do when they do DHCPv6-PD, > you're using something else. This is the first time I have heard of anyone > doing what you describe. > I mentioned because the Android guy seems to be guilty of know

Re: Routing Insecurity (Re: BGP in the Washington Post)

On Jun 10, 2015, at 7:51 AM, "Russ White" wrote: > > I'm not saying BGPSEC a bad solution for the questions asked -- I'm saying > it's is too heavyweight given the tradeoffs, and that we probably started > with the wrong questions in the first place. > > What's needed is to spend some time t

Re: Routing Insecurity (Re: BGP in the Washington Post)

There have been suggestions that a key-per-AS is easier to manage than a key-per-router, like in provisioning. Key-per-router was brought up as providing the means to excise one misbehaving router that is in some risky sort of environment, which is a different management pain. In terms of secu

RE: Android (lack of) support for DHCPv6

Ray Soucy 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 > pragmatis

Re: Android (lack of) support for DHCPv6

On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 12:35 AM, Tore Anderson wrote: > > And that's not counting future applications that can take > > advantage of multiple IP addresses that we haven't thought of yet, and > that > > we will have if we get stuck with > > > there-are-more-IPv6-addresses-in-this-subnet-than-grai

Re: Android (lack of) support for DHCPv6

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. --

Re: Android (lack of) support for DHCPv6

On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 12:36 AM, Jeff McAdams wrote: > 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. Did you intentionally leave the "in that scenari

Re: Lists of VPN exit addresses?

Well if they are using Hola then EVERY person with it installed is an exit-node. http://adios-hola.org https://m.reddit.com/r/netsec/comments/37rit3/adios_hola_why_you_should_immediately_uninstall/ On 10 Jun 2015 14:28, "Jared Mauch" wrote: > > > On Jun 10, 2015, at 8:08 AM, Roland Dobbins wro

Re: Android (lack of) support for DHCPv6

On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 8:35 AM, Tore Anderson wrote: > * Lorenzo Colitti > >> Tethering is just one example that we know about today. In android's case I am perpetually bemused by the fact they use dnsmasq for tethered dhcp, and dnsmasq long ago added support for doing smarter things with slaac,

Re: Android (lack of) support for DHCPv6

On 6/10/15 08:36, Jeff McAdams wrote: There is no other rational way to interpret your statement than to be a statement of Google's position. False dichotomies suck.

Re: Android (lack of) support for DHCPv6

> On Jun 10, 2015, at 11:36 AM, Jeff McAdams wrote: > > There is no other rational way to interpret your statement than to be a > statement of Google's position. As someone who posts from a personal email but my management has told me that I’m well identifiable as who I work for, I’m sympathe

Re: Android (lack of) support for DHCPv6

Re: Android (lack of) support for DHCPv6

On Wed, 2015-06-10 at 09:49 -0700, Scott Whyte wrote: > False dichotomies suck. There are only two kinds of dichotomy... those that suck and those that do not. This one sucks. Regards, K. -- ~~~ Karl Auer (ka...@biplane.com.au

Re: Android (lack of) support for DHCPv6

I don't really feel I was trying to take things out of context, but the full quote would be: "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

Re: Android (lack of) support for DHCPv6

> > 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.

Re: Android (lack of) support for DHCPv6

From: Lorenzo Colitti mailto:lore...@colitti.com>> Date: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 at 11:21 AM To: "George, Wes" mailto:wesley.geo...@twcable.com>> Cc: NANOG mailto:nanog@nanog.org>> Subject: Re: Android (lack of) support for DHCPv6 "I don't think it's a good plan to implement stateful DHCPv6 now

Re: Android (lack of) support for DHCPv6

I've already written systems to do this kind of thing, but the logging requirements quickly go through the roof for a non-trivial network; especially in the case of temporary addressing now default on many systems. That isn't so much the issue as operational consistency and supportability. The re

Re: eBay is looking for network heavies...

On Tue, 9 Jun 2015, Jay Ashworth wrote: - Original Message - From: "Shane Ronan" When I was asked the default BGP timers across three different vendor platforms as measure of my networking ability during an interview, I replied saying I'd look them up if needed them. I was told I didn'

RE: Android (lack of) support for DHCPv6

Ray Soucy wrote: > I don't really feel I was trying to take things out of context, but the full > quote > would be: > > "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 envir

Re: Android (lack of) support for DHCPv6

+1 One IP per device will almost most likely be the preference and implementation in corporate/enterprise deployments. Too much procedure, regulation and other roadblocks prevent any other solution. Authentication, Authorization, Accounting, ACLS, NMS, IDS, IP management, custom software, and

Re: Looking for information on IGP choices in dual-stack networks

On 6/9/2015 11:14 AM, Victor Kuarsingh wrote: We are looking particularly at combinations of the following IGPs: IS-IS, OSPFv2, OSPFv3, EIGRP. If you run something else (RIP?) then we would also like to hear about this, though we will likely document these differently. [We suspect you run RIP

Re: Android (lack of) support for DHCPv6

* Lorenzo Colitti > > On the other hand, there exist applications *today* that do require > > DHCPv6. One such example would be MAP, which IMHO is superior to > > 464XLAT both for the network operator (statlessness ftw) as well as > > for the end user (unsolicited inbound packets work, no NAT trav

Re: Android (lack of) support for DHCPv6

* Dave Taht > I am told that well over 50% of all android development comes from > volunteer developers so rather than kvetching about this it seems > plausible for an outside effort to get the needed features for > tethering and using dhcpv6-pd into it. If someone wanted to do the > work. https:

Re: Lists of VPN exit addresses?

I'd imagine it is quite easy for a lot of these providers to have a pre-configured virtual machine template or cd image that they can deploy across the board amongst a plethora of different VPS solutions as well. Being able to bring up exit points on the fly would be very helpful in bypassing censo

Re: Android (lack of) support for DHCPv6

* Lorenzo Colitti: > I think what I said is that supporting DHCPv6-only networks will eventually > force OS manufacturers to implement IPv6 NAT. This is because there are > many features inside a mobile OS that require multiple IP addresses. On many networks, there will be fairly tight limits on

Re: Android (lack of) support for DHCPv6

Memory is cheap, ASICs and FPGAs are getting better all the time. It might be a problem a few years from now for older hardware, but I can't see it causing real issues long term. Josh Reynolds CIO, SPITwSPOTS www.spitwspots.com On 06/10/2015 12:42 PM, Florian Weimer wrote: * Lorenzo Colitti:

Greenfield 464XLAT (In January)

Sincere apologies if this e-mail is inappropriate for this audience, We are (going to be) a startup ISP building a new network from the ground up. I was hoping I could get an opinion, or two, on how everyone feels about 464XLAT. I saw what everyone was saying about it in the 'Android doesn't supp

Re: Android (lack of) support for DHCPv6

On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 11:51 AM, Matthew Huff wrote: > +1 > > One IP per device will almost most likely be the preference and > implementation in corporate/enterprise deployments. Too much procedure, > regulation and other roadblocks prevent any other solution. > > Authentication, Authorization,

Re: Android (lack of) support for DHCPv6

On Wed, 10 Jun 2015 00:58:06 -0400, Lorenzo Colitti wrote: On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 12:26 PM, Jon Bane wrote: DHCPv6 - RFC3315 - Category: Standards Track 464XLAT - RFC6877 - Category: Informational Ooo, that's fun, can I play too? We aren't asking you to support BGP, or SNMP. We're DEMAND

Re: Android (lack of) support for DHCPv6

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 te

RE: Android (lack of) support for DHCPv6

> 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

Re: Android (lack of) support for DHCPv6

On 6/10/15 8:15 AM, Ray Soucy wrote: 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. I was going to respond on t

Re: Android (lack of) support for DHCPv6

On 6/9/15 1:27 PM, Joel Maslak wrote: Agreed - apparently the solution is to implement SLAAC + DNS advertisements *AND* DHCPv6. Because you need SLAAC + DNS advertisements for Android, and you need DHCPv6 for Windows. Am I the only one that thinks this situation is stupid? No, you're not. Som

RE: Android (lack of) support for DHCPv6

> From: Lorenzo Colitti > Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2015 11:33 PM > > value of N. I'd be happy to work with people on an Internet draft or other [...] > It's also possible for Android to support DHCPv6 PD. Again I'd be happy to > work with people on a document that says that mobile devices should do

Re: Android (lack of) support for DHCPv6

On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 2:16 PM, Doug Barton 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

RE: Android (lack of) support for DHCPv6

> From: Mikael Abrahamsson > Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 12:05 AM > > You seem to fail to realise that you are not Lorenzos customer, his > customer is the OEMs that build mobile phones, and their customers who buy > Android phones. And he fails to realize that the people who buy android phone

RE: Android (lack of) support for DHCPv6

> From: Ray Soucy > Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 4:36 AM > > In practice, your device will just not be supported. [..] > If your client is broken because of an incomplete implementation, I just > won't give it an IPv6 address at all. I think a lot of others feel the > same way. [...] > already

RE: Android (lack of) support for DHCPv6

> From: Lorenzo Colitti > Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 5:07 AM > > getting rid of NAT. Today in IPv4, tethering just works, period. [...] > IPv4-only apps always work. Wow. If your phone just "always works", you certainly lead a charmed life. > A model where the device has to request resources

Re: Android (lack of) support for DHCPv6

On 6/10/15 2:27 PM, Ted Hardie wrote: On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 2:16 PM, Doug Barton mailto:do...@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 demonstrate

Re: Android (lack of) support for DHCPv6

In message , Ray Soucy writes: > The whole conversation is around 464XLAT on IPv6-only networks right? > We're going to be dual-stack for a while IMHO, and by the time we can get > away with IPv6 only for WiFi, 464 should no longer be relevant because > we'll have widespread IPv6 adoption by then

RE: Android (lack of) support for DHCPv6

> From: Lorenzo Colitti > Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 5:22 AM > > It's certainly a possibility for both sides in this debate to say "my way > or the highway", and wait and see what happens when operators start > removing support for IPv4. You are rather confused. Only one side of this debate

Re: Android (lack of) support for DHCPv6

On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 2:36 PM, Doug Barton wrote: > > >> > > ​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

Re: Greenfield 464XLAT (In January)

On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 1:22 PM, Nicholas Warren wrote: > Sincere apologies if this e-mail is inappropriate for this audience, > We are (going to be) a startup ISP building a new network from the ground > up. I was hoping I could get an opinion, or two, on how everyone feels > about 464XLAT. I sa

RE: Android (lack of) support for DHCPv6

> From: Ray Soucy > Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 6:06 AM > > As for thinking "long term" and "the future", we need devices to work > within current models of IPv6 to accelerate _adoption_ of IPv6 _today_ > before we can get to that future you're talking about. > > Not supporting DHCPv6 ultimatel

Also seeking transit in Equinix SV2/Santa Clara (was: Re: RFP for Internet Transit for ARIN ASN 394018)

Folks - I forgot to mention the second west coast Internet transit RFP for delivery at Equinix SV2 - Thanks! /John On Jun 9, 2015, at 9:23 AM, John Curran mailto:jcur...@arin.net>> wrote: Hello NANOG Folks - Apologies for the distrac

RE: Android (lack of) support for DHCPv6

> From: Lorenzo Colitti > Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 8:27 AM > > 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. Can we construe your postings on the issue t

  1   2   >