Re: [dhcwg] DHCPv6 and IPv6ND

[Alexandru Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

Med,

Thank you for the reply.  I agree with some parts, but not with others.

Le 16/11/2017 à 12:25, [e-mail] a écrit :
> Re-,
> 
> Please see inline.
> 
> Cheers,
> Med
> 
>> -----Message d'origine-----
>> De : Alexandru Petrescu [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> 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, [e-mail] a écrit :
>>> Hi Alex,
>>>
>>> I disagree.
>>>
>>> The problems you are describing are implementation ones.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Med
>>>
>>>> -----Message d'origine-----
>>>> De : dhcwg [mailto:[e-mail]] 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
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg