undefined | Better HN

0 pointsthrow0101c1mo ago0 comments

> Most people using Android will come to your home and ask "do you have WiFi here?"

The Android implementation of IPv6 completely boggles my mind. They have completely refused to implemented DHCPv6 since 2012:

* https://issuetracker.google.com/issues/36949085

But months after client-side DHCP-PD was made an RFC they're implementing that?

* https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2025/09/simplifyin...

In what universe does implementing DHCP-PD but not 'regular' DHCPv6 make any kind of sense?

0 comments

aboardRat41mo ago

>In what universe does implementing DHCP-PD but not 'regular' DHCPv6 make any kind of sense?

Their policy makes a lot of sense. It's hindering ipv6 deployment, but it is preventing ISPs from allocating less than /64 to customers. It has nothing to do with standards actually.

Dhcp-pd makes a lot of sense though, because if an isp is willing to give you a prefix, they are by default nice guys.

throw0101cOP1mo ago

This is about client devices on home and corporate networks connecting to (e.g.) Wifi, and not about ISP connections and addresses on the WAN port of your home router.

Why should my Pixel 10 send out DHCP-PD packets when it connects to Wifi, but not DHCPv6?

aboardRat41mo ago

Because they only implement the methods which force ISPs to give you /64.

lxgr1mo ago

Like SLAAC...?

lxgr1mo ago

You really think they’re doing all of this as some elaborate “all or nothing” v6 deployment bargaining chip?

aboardRat41mo ago

Yes. I'm not an insider, of course.

lxgr1mo ago

I don’t think anyone is passionate enough about IPv6 for a conspiracy like that, to be honest, especially when there’s a much simpler explanation: SLAAC is both older and much more common, and Google just implemented the bare minimum.

2 more replies

lxgr1mo ago

Their reasoning seems to be that it enables use cases like a smartphone delegating v6 addresses to wearables etc.

Which is fine, I guess, but still doesn’t explain their refusal to implement regular DHCPv6 for so long.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

aboardRat41mo ago

>In what universe does implementing DHCP-PD but not 'regular' DHCPv6 make any kind of sense?

Their policy makes a lot of sense. It's hindering ipv6 deployment, but it is preventing ISPs from allocating less than /64 to customers. It has nothing to do with standards actually.

Dhcp-pd makes a lot of sense though, because if an isp is willing to give you a prefix, they are by default nice guys.

throw0101cOP1mo ago

This is about client devices on home and corporate networks connecting to (e.g.) Wifi, and not about ISP connections and addresses on the WAN port of your home router.

Why should my Pixel 10 send out DHCP-PD packets when it connects to Wifi, but not DHCPv6?

aboardRat41mo ago

Because they only implement the methods which force ISPs to give you /64.

lxgr1mo ago

Like SLAAC...?

lxgr1mo ago

You really think they’re doing all of this as some elaborate “all or nothing” v6 deployment bargaining chip?

aboardRat41mo ago

Yes. I'm not an insider, of course.

lxgr1mo ago

2 more replies

lxgr1mo ago

Their reasoning seems to be that it enables use cases like a smartphone delegating v6 addresses to wearables etc.

Which is fine, I guess, but still doesn’t explain their refusal to implement regular DHCPv6 for so long.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse