4 ms·

"3 Because of android refusing to implement it." So, some interesting history for the not-network-engineers out there on ipv6 fun. https://issuetracker.google

"3 Because of android refusing to implement it." So, some interesting history for the not-network-engineers out there on ipv6 fun. https://issuetracker.google.com/issues/36949085 https://issuetracker.google.com/issues/36949085 Why do people hate ipv6? Google comes to mind as one place to start.

j16sdiz 2y ago
No. In IPv6, you can get an address using RA. DHCPv6 only if you want to smuggle some unrelated metadata as options (which, of course, not widely used outside enterprise). DHCPv6-PD are used only when you need a whole prefix. If everybody implement all the specs out there, we will have two different DNS record type, 4 or 5 address allocation schemes, a handful of IPv6-over-IPv4 protocol, whole a lots of incomplete and incompatible IPv4-ovr-IPv6 protocol.... Etc... while telling everybody ipv6 is simple and ask why we haven't got there yet
- j16sdiz 2y ago
  I meant.... I love DHCPv6. If only RA wasn't mandatory part of IPv6, I am all for DHCPv6. It's the fault of early IPv6 designers with NIH syndrome created this mess.
  - kiwijamo 2y ago
    Out of interest as I have found IPv6 RA to work flawlessly for my home network (alongside legacy IPv4 DHCP), what advantage (if any) is there in deploying DHCPv6 within the home LAN? Or were you meaning to say DHCPv6 is great for certain (enterprise?) use cases?
    - hamandcheese 2y ago
      When I was experimenting with IPv6 on my lan, router advertisements indeed worked great! But the big loss was that I had no control to reserve a particular IPv6 address for a particular MAC address inside the DHCP server, or assign DNS names automatically, etc. since it's basically 1 way - device receives a RA then configures itself with a random address.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - pantalaimon 2y ago
        You could give the device a static address and let duplicate address detection do it’s thing
  - Spivak 2y ago
    And also really optimistic that client-client connections are allowed to perform the auto-configuration. Probably true in a home network, probably not at the office. I hope not at the office.
- Tigress8780 2y ago
  SLAAC is fine, until you somehow get a subnet smaller than /64 on your router, in which case SLAAC completely breaks. I understand why SLAAC has such a limitation, but this is what we get. It's not optimal, but the upstream network provider does not budge, and now everything except Android devices get IPv6 address via DHCPv6.
  - Dylan16807 2y ago
    Who's out there being so crazily stingy? Allocating a subnet that small is making things more complicated for no benefit.
    - mathsmath 2y ago
      Someone should double check me, but I think PD less than a /64 also just breaks (and probably is against the spec). A lot of the complaints I have seen in the last decade is from ISPs doing silly things and cutting their teeth on fresh IPv6 deployments. My ISP seems to have their collective ducks in a row now, and it has been rock solid for years. I actually had a case recently where a misbehaving IPv4 IoT device consumed my entire DHCP pool. IPv6 devices kept chugging along without any problem.
      - Tigress8780 2y ago
        It probably is. I remember that putting a /72 into OpenWRT's `ip6prefix` field actually breaks the whole network stack (including IPv4, the interface no longer has any address assigned to it).
        simoncion 2y ago
        I wonder if that's an artifact of configuration-generation scripts detonating before they ever get around to writing out any configuration, leaving the network interfaces entirely unconfigured.
  - devman0 2y ago
    Unicast IPv6 addresses are required to have a 64 bit interface identifier and a 64 bit network identifier (e.g. /64), handing out subnets lower than /64 is not spec compliant. Network operators can do crazy things, but if you color outside the lines things may break.
wmf 2y ago
Google doesn't hate IPv6; they've put huge effort into it. This particular issue is just weird.
- bastard_op 2y ago
  Weird indeed. It's sort of fun to see updates as you still get some random personal lashing out at one member in particular for a feud no one remembers but them, but either way it's like... why this mess we still can't have dhcpv6 on android for enterprise?

j16sdiz 2y ago

No. In IPv6, you can get an address using RA. DHCPv6 only if you want to smuggle some unrelated metadata as options (which, of course, not widely used outside enterprise). DHCPv6-PD are used only when you need a whole prefix. If everybody implement all the specs out there, we will have two different DNS record type, 4 or 5 address allocation schemes, a handful of IPv6-over-IPv4 protocol, whole a lots of incomplete and incompatible IPv4-ovr-IPv6 protocol.... Etc... while telling everybody ipv6 is simple and ask why we haven't got there yet

j16sdiz 2y ago
I meant.... I love DHCPv6. If only RA wasn't mandatory part of IPv6, I am all for DHCPv6. It's the fault of early IPv6 designers with NIH syndrome created this mess.
- kiwijamo 2y ago
  Out of interest as I have found IPv6 RA to work flawlessly for my home network (alongside legacy IPv4 DHCP), what advantage (if any) is there in deploying DHCPv6 within the home LAN? Or were you meaning to say DHCPv6 is great for certain (enterprise?) use cases?
  - hamandcheese 2y ago
    When I was experimenting with IPv6 on my lan, router advertisements indeed worked great! But the big loss was that I had no control to reserve a particular IPv6 address for a particular MAC address inside the DHCP server, or assign DNS names automatically, etc. since it's basically 1 way - device receives a RA then configures itself with a random address.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - pantalaimon 2y ago
      You could give the device a static address and let duplicate address detection do it’s thing
- Spivak 2y ago
  And also really optimistic that client-client connections are allowed to perform the auto-configuration. Probably true in a home network, probably not at the office. I hope not at the office.
Tigress8780 2y ago
SLAAC is fine, until you somehow get a subnet smaller than /64 on your router, in which case SLAAC completely breaks. I understand why SLAAC has such a limitation, but this is what we get. It's not optimal, but the upstream network provider does not budge, and now everything except Android devices get IPv6 address via DHCPv6.
- Dylan16807 2y ago
  Who's out there being so crazily stingy? Allocating a subnet that small is making things more complicated for no benefit.
  - mathsmath 2y ago
    Someone should double check me, but I think PD less than a /64 also just breaks (and probably is against the spec). A lot of the complaints I have seen in the last decade is from ISPs doing silly things and cutting their teeth on fresh IPv6 deployments. My ISP seems to have their collective ducks in a row now, and it has been rock solid for years. I actually had a case recently where a misbehaving IPv4 IoT device consumed my entire DHCP pool. IPv6 devices kept chugging along without any problem.
    - Tigress8780 2y ago
      It probably is. I remember that putting a /72 into OpenWRT's `ip6prefix` field actually breaks the whole network stack (including IPv4, the interface no longer has any address assigned to it).
      - simoncion 2y ago
        I wonder if that's an artifact of configuration-generation scripts detonating before they ever get around to writing out any configuration, leaving the network interfaces entirely unconfigured.
- devman0 2y ago
  Unicast IPv6 addresses are required to have a 64 bit interface identifier and a 64 bit network identifier (e.g. /64), handing out subnets lower than /64 is not spec compliant. Network operators can do crazy things, but if you color outside the lines things may break.

wmf 2y ago

Google doesn't hate IPv6; they've put huge effort into it. This particular issue is just weird.

bastard_op 2y ago
Weird indeed. It's sort of fun to see updates as you still get some random personal lashing out at one member in particular for a feud no one remembers but them, but either way it's like... why this mess we still can't have dhcpv6 on android for enterprise?