On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 10:25 PM, George, Wes <wesley.george@twcable.com> wrote:
The reality is that this whole argument is needlessly conflating multiple things in a way that isn't helpful, so I'm going to try to break this into pieces in order to make forward progress and try to get us away from what is devolving into a debate that is equal parts religion and kool-aid drinking contest among IPv6 übernerds.
Thank you for trying to reword what I tried to express. Your assessment pretty much matches mine, except for the conclusion (see below).
So what this means is that there is a draft to be written about the need for multiple address support on IPv6 networks for mobile devices, enumerating the ways that they use those multiple addresses, and how it differs from today's IPv4-only or dual-stack implementations, along with a big discussion on the breakage that can happen on IPv6-only networks if a device can't get the addresses it needs. It is a fool's errand to assume that we can dictate one and only one solution to #5 (regardless of one's perceived influence and market power), so the best we can do is to document the preferred one(s) and hope that we've made a good enough case or made them easy enough to use that the majority of network operators do support them. Sunset4 is the right place for that draft, so let's discuss it at the next IETF.
Yep (but perhaps in v6ops instead of sunset4, see below).
However, the spectre of #4 does NOT mean that DHCPv6 is unusable because it would break things today on a dual-stack network, so you need to stop trying to imply that, and stop trying to optimize for use cases that you yourself admit basically don't exist today by blocking support for something that we could use today to have more devices using IPv6, were it available.
I disagree with this part of the conclusion. I don't think it's a good plan to implement stateful DHCPv6 now and postpone the solution of the problem until IPv4 goes away many years from now. By then, a lot of water will have flowed under the bridge by then, and a lot of one-address-only networks will have been deployed and have moulded industry thinking. So, much as it pains me to stand in the way of IPv6 adoption - and you should how much I've tried to do on that front - I think that that wide deployment of one-address-per-device IPv6 might actually do more harm than good, and I expect that many operators who are going to require stateful DHCPv6 addressing are going to use it for one-address-per-device IPv6. I really think it's better if we get this right now, not kick the can down the road. That means we as an industry need to find a solution for IPv6 deployment in university/enterprise networks that does not devolve into one-address-per-device IPv6, *before* one-address-per-device IPv6 becomes universally implemented and usable.