[dhcwg] Re: [v6ops] Re: Re: Re: [IPv6]Re: An droid now supports DHCPv6 PD
Daryll Swer <[email protected]> Tue, 16 Sep 2025 18:08:18 +0530
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.dhc,gmane.ietf.v6ops |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CACyFTPFuSeTE63vqBsWXzm9rG6e0Nq1WhunwGL0e4-qeCKNGVA@mail.gmail.com> |
I'm working on an IPv6 deployment right now where I accounted for RFC9663 or simply in other words: ia_pd on endpoints. I'm doing /38 per campus, /51 per VLAN, /60 per endpoint, 512 devices per VLAN, 8192 VLANs/VNIs. The reason for /60s is an edge case involving users with compute nodes and their own hypervisors. If I exclude this factor, then /64 per endpoint is sufficient in other more common scenarios. -- Sent from my iPhone On Tue, 16 Sep 2025 at 5:19 PM, Mark Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, 16 Sept 2025 at 19:05, Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo= > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Recommendations for network operators are written in RFC 9663. Some text >> about expected prefix lengths is in section 8 of that RFC. RFC 9762 says >> the prefix must be SLAAC-sized, which currently means it must be a /64 per >> device. A /48 is fine for a small or medium network, but a campus with tens >> of thousands of devices on it probably needs more than that. >> > > I would assume (and I'm interested to find out otherwise) that once a > network gets to say 30K hosts, then they've moved to BGP as their main > routing protocol. 65 536 /64 routes in BGP is a walk in the park, so a /48 > for a network of say 50K hosts each with is own /64 and 15K /64s left over > for everything else would seem to be a large network. In other words, I > think a /48 would suit all but the largest networks. > > Are there large enterprise or university networks with 10s of 1000s of > hosts that aren't using BGP (yet?). > > Regards, > Mark. > > >> >> On Tue, Sep 16, 2025 at 5:59 PM Tim Chown <Tim.Chown= >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> >>> >>> Good news, thanks. >>> >>> >>> >>> What’s the recommended deployment model for PD to the host in a campus >>> WiFi scenario? I can certainly see advantages for it, as you’ve >>> highlighted in your email. The linked article explains “what this means >>> for app developers” but a “what this means for enterprise/campus network >>> operators” would be useful. >>> >>> >>> >>> Is it a given that in a middling or large campus the operator will need >>> to now receive more than a /48 from their NREN? Or was that always too >>> cautious? A small but growing number here are obtaining LIR status >>> directly. >>> >>> >>> >>> Tim >>> >>> >>> >>> On 16/09/2025, 09:49, "Lorenzo Colitti" <lorenzo= >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> There was a typo in the original post. It was fixed earlier today; it >>> now says "Android 11 and above" >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Sep 16, 2025 at 3:21 PM Maciej Żenczykowski <maze= >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> There's a reddit thread: >>> >>> >>> https://www.reddit.com/r/Android/comments/1nhzsst/android_developers_blog_simplifying_advanced/ >>> >>> First comment: >>> >>> There's a mistake in the page: running Android and above before the >>> end of the year via a Google Play System Update. >>> >>> Which version? >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Sep 16, 2025 at 3:59 AM Stan Barber <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > >>> > Congrats! >>> > >>> > On Mon, Sep 15, 2025 at 6:32 PM Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo= >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> FYI, we announced DHCPv6 PD support on Android today: >>> >> >>> >> >>> https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2025/09/simplifying-advanced-networking-with.html >>> >> >>> >> This change should already be live on most Android devices running >>> Android 11 and above. Specifically: >>> >> >>> >> RFC 9762: if the P flag is set, the device will ask for a SLAAC-sized >>> prefix, and if it gets it, use it to form addresses. Some devices will also >>> disable SLAAC as per the SHOULD in the RFC. Not all devices will support >>> this because it requires a kernel change which will be rolling out over the >>> coming months. In future releases, we expect that the prefix will be shared >>> with downstream devices, wearable devices, VMs, etc. >>> >> Heuristic: if the device obtains a default route but not PIO, it will >>> ask for a prefix, and if it gets it, use it to form addresses. This allows >>> DHCPv6-only networks to support Android devices today without having to >>> upgrade their routers to set the P flag. >>> >> >>> >> Over the next few months we also plan to roll out support for DHCPv6 >>> address registration (RFC 9686). >>> >> >>> >> I would like to thank everyone who contributed to RFC 9663, RFC 9762 >>> and RFC 9686. We think that DHCPv6 PD is *better* than either SLAAC or >>> IA_NA, because it allows the device to provide end-to-end connectivity to >>> unlimited devices, containers, VMs etc. without scaling load on the >>> network. Plus the prefix can be tracked and managed by the operator, which >>> means that it should be possible to deploy it in networks that require >>> DHCPv6 or that have scaling issues dealing with many addresses. We hope >>> that this will allow at least some enterprise operators to deploy IPv6 to >>> Android devices. >>> >> >>> >> Cheers, >>> >> Lorenzo >>> >> _______________________________________________ >>> >> v6ops mailing list -- [email protected] >>> >> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >>> > >>> > -------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list >>> > [email protected] >>> > List Info: https://mailman3.ietf.org/mailman3/lists/[email protected]/ >>> > -------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> -- >>> Maciej Żenczykowski, Kernel Networking Developer @ Google >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >> > dhcwg mailing list -- [email protected] >> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >> > _______________________________________________ > v6ops mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > [image: 9eb9e675cfd5983f2907e91254d424679cc4450a] _______________________________________________ dhcwg mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]