Re: Android (lack of) support for DHCPv6

[Laszlo Hanyecz <laszlo () heliacal net>]

On Jun 12, 2015, at 12:51 AM, Ray Soucy <rps () maine edu> wrote:

> That's really not the case at all.  
>
> You're just projecting your own views about not thinking DHCPv6 is valid and making yourself and Lorenzo out to be 
> the some sort of victims of NANOG and the ... 

DHCPv6 and Android are just collateral damage here but I think the argument is about steering what the generally 
accepted form of "end user IPv6 on WiFi" will be.  It would be great if we could agree on that so we don't all have to 
write support for many different ways and provide complicated user interfaces for configuring it, right?  Plug and play?

> > university net nazis
>
> Did you really just write that?  

As far as "net nazi", I meant it in the same sense as a BOFH.  Someone who is intentionally degrading a user's 
experience by using technical means to block specifically targeted applications or behaviors.  And "angry old men" is 
also not a literal meaning, but an observation of how this has turned into a flame war where it's a lot of seemingly 
angry people mobbing the Android developer.

> What we're arguing for here is choice, the exact opposite of the association you're trying to make here.  It's 
> incredibly poor taste to throw that term around in this context, and adds nothing to the discussion.
>
> People are not logical.  They adopt a position and then look for information to support it rather than counter it; 
> they even go as far as to ignore or dismiss relevant information in the face of logic.  That's religion.  And this 
> entire discussion continues to be rooted in religion rather than pragmatism.
>
> DHCPv6 is a tool, just as SLAAC is a tool.  IPv6 was designed to support both options because they both have valid 
> use cases.  Please allow network operators to use the best tool for the job instead of telling us all we're required 
> to do it your way (can you even see how ridiculous this whole "nazi" name calling is given the position you're taking)

Without getting into all the "actually there is edge case X" discussions, when you connect to a WiFi network at an 
office, home or public place today, it's pretty 'standard' to find a DHCP server handing out rfc1918 IPv4 addresses, 
recursive name servers, and the network doing some form of NAT or proxying.  This is pretty much what we expect when we 
open up a laptop and connect to a network, and if it doesn't work we call the help desk and ask why it doesn't do what 
we expect.  Every user application that wants to do peer to peer networking has to come up with some complicated 
workaround to communicate through the various forms of NAT and proxies.

What do we expect to happen with regard to IPv6? I think it would be great if end to end connectivity was common enough 
that application developers could assume it will be there, and avoid having to do those workarounds.  On the other 
hand, if it becomes common and acceptable to use DHCPv6 to provide a single address only, then applications will just 
circumvent it once again with things like NAT, VPNs and reflector servers, which actually makes it worse for everyone 
involved.

> You don't get to just say "I'm not going to implement this because I don't agree with it," which is what Google is 
> doing in the case of Android.
>
> The reason Lorenzo has triggered such a backlash on NANOG is that is fundamental argument on why he doesn't see 
> DHCPv6 as valid for the Android is quite frankly a very weak argument at best.  If you're going to stand up and say 
> you're not going to do what everyone else has already done, especially when it comes to implementation of fundamental 
> standards that everything depends upon, you need to have a better reason for it than the one Lorenzo provided.

It seems like several people have taken the position that they will use their influence to steer others away from 
Android because it doesn't work with their chosen network configuration.  This to me sounds very much like Android 
taking the position that the network should support their chosen address configuration protocol instead of that other 
one.  I think in the end we're going to find that both the network side and the client side end up having to support 
the whole matrix of possible configurations, if the end goal is to provide a good user experience, but this is not a 
good OS developer and network operator experience because it creates more work for everyone and more trouble for users 
when the complicated workarounds don't work.

-Laszlo

> I honestly hope he collects himself and takes the time to respond, because it really is a problem.
>
> As much as you may not want DHCPv6 to be a thing, it's already a thing.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 7:42 PM, Laszlo Hanyecz <laszlo () heliacal net> wrote:
> Lorzenzo is probably not going to post anymore because of this.
>
> It looks to me like Lorenzo wants the same thing as most everyone here, aside from the university net nazis, and he's 
> got some balls to come defend his position against the angry old men of NANOG.  Perhaps the approach of attacking 
> DHCP is not the right one, but it sounds like his goal is to make IPv6 better than how IPv4 turned out.
>
> Things like privacy extensions, multiple addresses and PD are great because they make it harder for people to do 
> address based tracking, which is generally regarded as a desirable feature except by the people who want to do the 
> tracking.  DHCPv6 is a crutch that allows operators to simply implement IPv6 with all the same hacks as IPv4 and 
> continue to do address based access control, tracking, etc.  It's like a 'goto' statement - it can be used to do 
> clever things, but it can also be used to hack stuff and create very hard to fix problems down the road.  I think 
> what Lorenzo is trying to do is to use his influence/position to forcefully prevent people from doing this, and while 
> that may not be the most diplomatic way, I admire his courage in posting here and trying to reason with the mob.
>
> -Laszlo
>
>
> On Jun 10, 2015, at 10:24 PM, Michael Thomas <mike () mtcc com> wrote:
>
> > On 06/10/2015 02:51 PM, Paul B. Henson wrote:
> > > > 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 thread as being Google and/or Androids official position? They are 
> > > posted by lorenzo () google com with a tag of "Project Member", and I believe you also declined the request in the 
> > > issue under that mantle.
> > Oh, stop this. The only thing this will accomplish is a giant black hole of silence from anybody at Google and any 
> > other $MEGACORP
> > in a similar situation.
> >
> > Mike
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> 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