IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [5gangip] New Version Notification for draft-xyx-5gip-ps-01.txt

Uma Chunduri <uma.chunduri@huawei.com> Thu, 25 May 2017 18:06 UTC

Return-Path: <uma.chunduri@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: 5gangip@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 5gangip@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CCE0129B94 for <5gangip@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 May 2017 11:06:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.221
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.221 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oBw5QM1TNSjj for <5gangip@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 May 2017 11:06:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7BF30124217 for <5gangip@ietf.org>; Thu, 25 May 2017 11:06:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml702-cah.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id DNU13546; Thu, 25 May 2017 18:05:59 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from SJCEML702-CHM.china.huawei.com (10.208.112.38) by lhreml702-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.43) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.301.0; Thu, 25 May 2017 19:05:58 +0100
Received: from SJCEML701-CHM.china.huawei.com ([169.254.3.56]) by SJCEML702-CHM.china.huawei.com ([169.254.4.117]) with mapi id 14.03.0235.001; Thu, 25 May 2017 11:05:51 -0700
From: Uma Chunduri <uma.chunduri@huawei.com>
To: Saleem Bhatti <saleem@st-andrews.ac.uk>, Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>
CC: "5gangip@ietf.org" <5gangip@ietf.org>, Cameron Byrne <cb.list6@gmail.com>, "Dirk.von-Hugo@telekom.de" <Dirk.von-Hugo@telekom.de>
Thread-Topic: [5gangip] New Version Notification for draft-xyx-5gip-ps-01.txt
Thread-Index: AQHS1TO9lC6nlpN2bESDpcI0q5F8ZqIFowEAgAAcNYD//5Yk0A==
Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 18:05:51 +0000
Message-ID: <25B4902B1192E84696414485F5726854018BB10D@SJCEML701-CHM.china.huawei.com>
References: <149547735610.22634.10661693302211465600.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAC8QAcdiCsxRT7_ube47q5YiAdkBP9-jC7AyLWXQaGR4vAboRQ@mail.gmail.com> <1765af8f1375483dba56391633ebb4d5@HE105831.emea1.cds.t-internal.com> <CAD6AjGSYJVjnBkA0oTO49=ApPeHQBK=z5JPadBtujoP0_9iL8g@mail.gmail.com> <CALx6S35GzM7Kmj9C80VN4TZNZZjYwLWXPpZpbPD0gXS-74Va9g@mail.gmail.com> <CAD6AjGRwK+ikUeytA=H64VMO1o1GkPVV4e9q3CaSi0xNi0xHAw@mail.gmail.com> <CALx6S37mF8Ujb75SeG6xOC-X=8KQPBtPj2pNoOvCnFJK6fBtQQ@mail.gmail.com> <9735C639-84B5-4C8F-8C3B-B4E85A16EEB8@st-andrews.ac.uk> <CALx6S36H9f5Ew7b2fru9SOQesJD6YsCt7wwwb1mV=kworXmq5w@mail.gmail.com> <84FDD158-BE3D-400B-A814-53A793437470@st-andrews.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <84FDD158-BE3D-400B-A814-53A793437470@st-andrews.ac.uk>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.213.49.37]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_25B4902B1192E84696414485F5726854018BB10DSJCEML701CHMchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A090206.59271D07.008A, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=169.254.3.56, so=2013-06-18 04:22:30, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32
X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: 6fc4c5e57ac1b8d91306a6d135cbd63f
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/5gangip/LF3eHKyQfAeGvrUB4SS2ivbBr1g>
Subject: Re: [5gangip] New Version Notification for draft-xyx-5gip-ps-01.txt
X-BeenThere: 5gangip@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion of implications of the upcoming 5th Generation \(fixed and\) Mobile communication systems on IP protocols." <5gangip.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/5gangip>, <mailto:5gangip-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/5gangip/>
List-Post: <mailto:5gangip@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:5gangip-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/5gangip>, <mailto:5gangip-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 18:06:04 -0000

How does ILNP solve the /64 assignment to UEs problem? In this case it
seems the identifier needs to be longer than 64 bits.

A /64 assigned to an ILNPv6 host would be treated as a Locator value - a L64 value. Locator values in ILNPv6 are 64 bits.
ILNPv6 Identifier values - Node ID (NID) values - are also 64 bits.
So, I am not sure why an assignment of a /64 to an ILNPv6 end-node would require the identifier to be longer than 64 bits.

[Uma]:  I would see 64-bit  stable identifier in the data plane as a restriction. As it’s possible for some of the ID control plane protocols will have harder time to get over
             with this restriction (for identifier length of 96-bits/HIT or control planes with full 128 bits identifier).
             Not sure what this restriction will  have on a truly anonymous global communication requirement discussed earlier.

BR,
--
Uma C.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email