Why used DHCPv6 when RA has RDNSS and DNSSL?

[Lorenzo Colitti]

On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 9:03 PM Nick Hilliard <nick at foobar.org> wrote:

> - politics: probably the most contentious area. One well-known example
> is how ipv6 on cellular impacts carrier vs handset control politics.
> 3GPP specifies that the ppp context for tethering must support SLAAC and
> therefore it provides a /64 for LAN connectivity. This means that the
> handset applications have as much address space as they need.  The
> argument goes that if DHCPv6 were a viable option for this, then the
> mobile operators would effectively wrestle control of the applications
> running on the handset (and ultimately control of the handset
> capabilities itself away from the handset software vendors) by handing
> control of the number of available IPv6 addresses to the cellular
> operator.  This is, at least, the reason cited by the Android authors
> for the point-blank refusal to implement DHCPv6 in android (bug ID
> 32621).  This argument has been carried into the IETF on the basis that
> any attempt to make dhcpv6 a standalone protocol should be resisted in
> all cases because this will hand too much control over to the operator -
> never mind the fact that it is arguably only relevant on cellular
> connections, which are defined by 3GPP rather than the IETF.
>

FWIW I think you're misreading that issue. The actual arguments against
IA_NA are stated in RFC 7934. They don't have much or anything to do with
mobile networks, who have widely deployed (and, as far as I can tell, are
happy with) SLAAC.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.cluenet.de/pipermail/ipv6-ops/attachments/20200401/4e887ccc/attachment.htm>