Re: Android (lack of) support for DHCPv6

["Ricky Beam" <jfbeam () gmail com>]

On Thu, 11 Jun 2015 19:42:07 -0400, Laszlo Hanyecz <laszlo () heliacal net>  
wrote:
> It looks to me like Lorenzo wants the same thing as most everyone here,

It doesn't look like that from my chair. He doesn't want to implement  
DHCPv6 (and has REFUSED to do so for YEARS now) because he cannot find  
solutions for every possible permutation. In fact, he's hung up on **ONE**  
configuration: a network where DHCPv6 allows exactly one address to an  
endpoint.

> 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.

Addresses are *always* trackable. It's just a matter of who is in the best  
position to do it. My ISPs know what prefixes are assigned to me (both  
static and dynamic.) If I keep track of it, I know everything that's using  
an address in my networks -- by DHCP logs, and in theory, MAC table logs.  
(btw, I don't know of any solutions for MAC level logging.)

> 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 allows them to have the level of accountability and control they desire  
and/or REQUIRE.

With DHCPv6, one doesn't have to pin a device to a single, solitary  
address. ISPs already handle that with PD (a single /64, a /60, or  
larger.) And there's nothing in the specs blocking a node from asking for  
multiple addresses. Again, because of the specter of one-address, Lorenzo  
REFUSED to support DHCPv6, IN. ANY. WAY.