Re: [dhcwg] DHCPv6 and IPv6ND

<mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> Thu, 16 November 2017 11:58 UTC

Return-Path: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3546129471 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Nov 2017 03:58:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.619
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.619 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=no 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 jbXWz-LAddb0 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Nov 2017 03:58:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from orange.com (mta134.mail.business.static.orange.com [80.12.70.34]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8D72A1294BC for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Nov 2017 03:57:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from opfednr01.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.65]) by opfednr27.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 68615A10CA; Thu, 16 Nov 2017 12:57:47 +0100 (CET)
Received: from Exchangemail-eme2.itn.ftgroup (unknown [xx.xx.31.33]) by opfednr01.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 499F91A005F; Thu, 16 Nov 2017 12:57:47 +0100 (CET)
Received: from OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::60a9:abc3:86e6:2541]) by OPEXCLILM42.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::d5fd:9c7d:2ee3:39d9%19]) with mapi id 14.03.0361.001; Thu, 16 Nov 2017 12:57:46 +0100
From: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
To: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
CC: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>, dhcwg <dhcwg@ietf.org>, "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] DHCPv6 and IPv6ND
Thread-Index: AQHTXsrKDhJlYh9cXUm8u4vbXET25aMW2PDg///6vQCAABGj8A==
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2017 11:57:46 +0000
Message-ID: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93300A07B9D1@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <cf2e41a05fd742a3b576ee317c5392f6@XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com> <e4df5049-2548-6762-994d-a12c8f663e59@gmail.com> <8E4C374A-DA6D-4FAB-AAEA-7EB4A2A655D8@fugue.com> <68a1f0db-58d3-fe0e-8169-127c0b629df1@gmail.com> <89CE6E3F-7501-4A8D-9A1B-5638A8845E7D@fugue.com> <7ef058e6-0360-f86c-b7d8-8eaf129a7f95@gmail.com> <CAPt1N1=o+N64kdoYSSG38rwazAj_Lj9xLUV4uDCAzxbcpref1g@mail.gmail.com> <d194e3a4-620f-dde3-c836-3b5122d2805b@gmail.com> <FA0DADA0-CD16-4538-9E71-19922AD106B9@cisco.com> <c1209cd5-270e-63fe-8d78-c6371f9f56ef@gmail.com> <2907A64D-BB00-4922-BA6F-AA596AC878AB@fugue.com> <0b88f8af-2cbd-e6b2-ff22-50d682a66e8f@gmail.com> <953BFAD3-BAD7-4A1D-A102-2A6C7873052C@fugue.com> <3f898368-6222-d87c-7baa-38dea51a6980@gmail.com> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93300A07B80E@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <8fc9efa9-764c-caf7-06e8-5eb7052dcda6@gmail.com> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93300A07B952@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <53ce58b6-beb6-cab0-d76b-2562d9feb2e1@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <53ce58b6-beb6-cab0-d76b-2562d9feb2e1@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.168.234.4]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/I8jV7xRPAtSpSlQOOVgyu-Fz5Bo>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] DHCPv6 and IPv6ND
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dhcwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2017 11:58:16 -0000

Alex, 

Actually, it seems that we are in agreement in almost all points :)

The question is how this group can help fixing the modem issue (or any other blocking filters that may be in-between clients and servers). 

Cheers,
Med

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Alexandru Petrescu [mailto:alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com]
> Envoyé : jeudi 16 novembre 2017 12:50
> À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN
> Cc : Ted Lemon; dhcwg; Bernie Volz (volz)
> Objet : Re: [dhcwg] DHCPv6 and IPv6ND
> 
> Med,
> 
> Thank you for the reply.  I agree with some parts, but not with others.
> 
> Le 16/11/2017 à 12:25, mohamed.boucadair@orange.com a écrit :
> > Re-,
> >
> > Please see inline.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Med
> >
> >> -----Message d'origine-----
> >> De : Alexandru Petrescu [mailto:alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com]
> >> Envoyé : jeudi 16 novembre 2017 12:05
> >> À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN
> >> Cc : Ted Lemon; dhcwg; Bernie Volz (volz)
> >> Objet : Re: [dhcwg] DHCPv6 and IPv6ND
> >>
> >> Med,
> >> Which part do you disagree with in my text?
> >>
> >> I agree the problems are indeed implementation problems,
> >
> > [Med] Cool.
> >
> >   but I need to
> >> understand which part do you disagree?
> >>
> >
> > [Med] I disagree that the spec needs to say that the port number is
> variable. This should be left to implementers, if neede. BTW, configuring
> a distinct port number will require that the client is able to learn that
> alternate port. This will lead to more interoperability problems than it
> solves.
> >
> >> Do you disagree when I say that the entire issue about making DHCPv6
> >> work on 3GPP should be forgotten?
> >
> > [Med] Prefix delegation can work easily in cellular networks if all
> involved parties/implementers are following current specs. That is:
> > - The client uses the defined multicast address + service port when
> issuing its solicit messages + supply prefix_exclude.
> > - The server listens on the service port + does not make any assumption
> about the source IP address + treat DUIDs as opaque values that are only
> used to compare equality.
> 
> I think after all this time we can safely say that the specification
> written above has never been experimented successfully.
> 
> YEs, my ARM runs DHCPv6-PD with all the options that you required.  Yes,
> the operator DHCPv6 Server is running and configured to do PD a /56.
> But no, the two have never performed a successful exchange.
> 
> The problem is in the middle - the modem.
> 
> It's not only me who says this.  Lorenzo complained about modems and
> DHCPv6 several years ago.  Others on the v6ops WG agreed with him.
> 
> Yes, they made a wrong assertion saying the operator does not support
> DHCPv6: the operator _can_ do DHCPv6, and the assertion was wrong.
> 
> > I'm aware that some messages are "blocked" by some chipset vendors, but
> again this is an implementation issue.
> 
> I checked Qualcomm and Balong modems.  That represents quite a lot of
> the installed base.
> 
> I will be happy to check others like Intel modems, but I dont know how.
> 
> There is also a possibility that the specification that you write above,
> and where you refer to involved parties: maybe it's a matter between
> operator, implementers at router manufacturer and implementers at modem
> manufacturer.  I do not represent any: just implementer of open source.
> 
> A modem implementer has access to source code of the modem.
> 
> A router manufacturer implementer has access to source code of router.
> 
> Alex
> 
> > I do agree with you it is frustrating.
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Alex
> 
> >
> >    Or other part?
> >>
> >> Alex
> >>
> >> Le 16/11/2017 à 11:08, mohamed.boucadair@orange.com a écrit :
> >>> Hi Alex,
> >>>
> >>> I disagree.
> >>>
> >>> The problems you are describing are implementation ones.
> >>>
> >>> Cheers,
> >>> Med
> >>>
> >>>> -----Message d'origine-----
> >>>> De : dhcwg [mailto:dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de Alexandru
> >>>> Petrescu
> >>>> Envoyé : jeudi 16 novembre 2017 07:38
> >>>> À : Ted Lemon
> >>>> Cc : dhcwg; Bernie Volz (volz)
> >>>> Objet : Re: [dhcwg] DHCPv6 and IPv6ND
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Le 16/11/2017 à 06:29, Ted Lemon a écrit :
> >>>>> I'm having trouble figuring out how changing the port would help.
> >>>>> You'd still have to make the same modifications.   You'd still have
> >>>>> to define a business model.
> >>>>
> >>>> _If_ there is a standard that says port number is variable, and if
> >>>> hardware manufacturer implements it, then it will help.
> >>>>
> >>>> If not, not.
> >>>>
> >>>> If so, this entire issue about making DHCPv6 work on 3GPP networks
> >>>> should be forgotten.   It's impossible to make it work.
> >>>>
> >>>> That puts the discussion of DHCPv6 and IPv6ND outside the 3GPP
> context
> >>>> altogether.
> >>>>
> >>>> For the business model: I am not an economist.
> >>>>
> >>>> Alex
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> dhcwg mailing list
> >>>> dhcwg@ietf.org
> >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg