On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 8:26 AM, Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@colitti.com> wrote:
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
Ah, Lorenzo, Lorenzo... I was going to just let the thread go quietly by until you pulled out the "I'm not speaking for my employer" card. :( Can we take what you posted here https://code.google.com/p/android/issues/detail?id=32621#c53 from your google.com account to be official Google position, when you closed the issue requesting DHCPv6 support as "Declined?" Again, in comment #109 https://code.google.com/p/android/issues/detail?id=32621#c109 you speak from your Google.com account when you repeat *twice* the position that you won't support stateful DHCPv6: "and not via stateful DHCPv6 address assignment" followed by "while continuing not to support DHCPv6 address assignment." It's hard to not see _that_ as being Google's position, when you post it from your google.com account in response to an issue raised about broken functionality on the Android platform. So perhaps you're right, and the words you use on _this_ thread are your personal opinion; unfortunately, they seem to be the same words and opinions you use from your google.com account when denying input from Android users who don't seem to want their devices to be crippled by incomplete DHCPv6 support. I wonder at what point large enterprises will simply say "sorry, without working DHCPv6 support, Android devices will not be supported on this network"--at which point this will stop being a religious issue, and will shift to being a business issue, as Google will have to decide whether being stubbornly dogmatic while losing large customers is worth it or not. Thanks! Matt PS--just because some poor unfortunate soul found a way to scrape neighbor tables to work around the lack of DHCPv6 lease logs does *not* make it a practical or wise alternative. A certain network has been trying to test out that workaround, and every time they scrape the neighbor table, the CPU on the routers pegs at 100%. PPS--I am likewise posting this from my personal account (which is still running an old enough Cisco image that it pre-dates IPv6 support entirely, making most of this a moot point for me personally). The opinions expressed here are purely my own, and should in no way be construed to apply to anyone but myself, and possibly the mice living in the garage.