Re: Android (lack of) support for DHCPv6

[Michael Thomas <mike () mtcc com>]

On 06/10/2015 03:32 PM, George, Wes wrote:
> From: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf () gmail com<mailto:ted.ietf () gmail com>>
> Date: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 at 6:09 PM
> To: "George, Wes" <wesley.george () twcable com<mailto:wesley.george () twcable com>>
> Cc: Doug Barton <dougb () dougbarton us<mailto:dougb () dougbarton us>>, "nanog () nanog org<mailto:nanog () nanog org>" <nanog 
> () nanog org<mailto:nanog () nanog org>>
> Subject: Re: Android (lack of) support for DHCPv6
>
>
> I saw your response, but creating a hypervisor-equivalent network stack inside Android didn't seem particularly easy to me.  This 
> may be, however, because I've mostly dealt with OVS-style approaches in the past few years and my calibration is off. If you have 
> pointers to implementations that are for mobile devices, I'd be happy to be educated.
>
> WG] I was merely observing that bridging so that multiple virtual interfaces/devices can share the same interface and get their own addresses is a solved problem 
> generically. From what I can see with KVM, it involves creating a bridge interface or group, and bridging both the physical interface and any virtual interfaces 
> into it, and then standing back. Doesn't seem obvious to me that it requires an entire hypervisor-equivalent network stack to get this one fairly limited 
> feature, and I'm not aware of any mobile implementations, but it does seem to me that its presence in Linux makes it something we shouldn't dismiss out of 
> hand when exploring solutions to this problem given Android's Linux roots - At it's core, it's still a general–purpose computer with a set of network 
> interfaces. I'm not an expert on either Android's networking stack nor Linux's, nor hypervisors, but I have a hunch if this was allowed to move 
> through the existing Android feature development process, we might find some folks that are and can tell us whether this is doable as an alternative to DHCP–PD or 
> SLAAC on networks that generally adhere to the one address per device rule.
Besides, virtualizing the os environment on a phone would be a very 
interesting thing in its own right. I thought that
was gaining momentum at one point as a way to deal with the friction 
between corpro-IT demands of control, and
end user desire to keep nannyware crap off their phone -- just have two 
vm's with each environment.

Mike