Subject: Re: [v6ops] Making RDNSS a MUST?

From: Ross Chandler <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2017 09:02:51 +0100

Huawei added RDNSS in RA to our home router after we asked for it. 
I wonder how committed to not supporting stateless DHCPv6 or RDNSS in RA other router and host operating system vendors are when there's a contract giving the customer some leverage when asking for it. This problem seems to be one of a single vendor doing 99% of the blocking.
Ross

-------- Original message --------
From: [email-masked] 
Date: 03/04/2017  07:04  (GMT+00:00) 
To: [email-masked] 
Cc: [email-masked] 
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Making RDNSS a MUST? 

> > Operators and vendors will not do this. They have already voted with their feet, and have made it quite clear that DHCP is the preferred method of host configuration.
> 
> Which vendors? Juniper supports RDNSS, Cisco supports RDNSS, RADVD supports RDNSS$,1s&(B
> 
> Which major router platforms are you thinking of that don$,1ry(Bt support RDNSS?

Huawei. No support, no plans last time we asked them.

Steinar Haug, AS2116

_______________________________________________
v6ops mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops

---

From: Scott Morizot <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 09:52:48 -0500

Steinar Haug wrote:

I believe the lack of DHCPv6 in Android is a political descision.
> It certainly isn't due to lack of hardware resources.

Agreed. If there's no consensus to say that both MUST be implemented in
routers and hosts, and it does appear that politics will prevent even a
rough consensus in that direction, then leave it all either unspecified or
SHOULD. It will be interesting to see in the long term if Google can
actually impose its perspective on other enterprises, regardless of what
the IETF publishes. I don't even know that I personally feel that strongly
one way or another. But I do know that our core enterprise data networks
(as opposed to guest or other constrained networks) will continue to use
dhcpv6 only (m=1 and a=0) with no RDNSS configured for the foreseeable
future. Devices that won't play in that environment won't be on our
procurement list.

Scott

---

From: Ricardo Peláez Negro <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 07:26:24 -0500

>> Stuff "designed for homes" gets put on corprate nets all the time.  It
should
>> just work there.  There is very little, if anything, that doesn't get
connected
>> to both types of nets.
>
> I guess my employer's corporate network must be very different from that
of others.

>Yes. There are lots of enterprise networks, for example probably every
university
>that supports IPv6, where BYOD is the norm. There are also lots of
enterprise
>networks that are strict. One size definitely does not fit all. "MUST
implement"
<is very different from "MUST enable". I believe we're talking about "MUST
>implement."
>Brian

This is the case in the university I work for, We have a lot of
students/staff with BYOD. +1 to making RDNSS a MUST implement. (Much better
with stateless DHCPv6 a MUST/SHOULD, to give a complete set of options to
network operators)

*Ricardo *