Re: [dhcwg] MTU option for DHCPv6?

Alexandre, that doesn't make sense. The only specified mechanism for IPv6
on 3GPP links is RAs.

There is no Ethernet on cellular links, where did you get that from?

The fact that the host can configure lots of addresses is a feature, not a
bug. It makes useful features like /64 sharing possible.

On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 12:19 AM, Alexandre Petrescu <
alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> wrote:

> On point to point links like cellular, RA makes little sense, is not
> specified formally (IPv6-over-Ethernet-over-cellular) and is cause of
> incompatibility issues; when used as part of SLAAC with privacy address
> concepts the RA was witnessed to result in huge number of addresses
> self-configured.
>
> The INFORMATIONAL 64share is another result of using wrongly RAs on ptp
> links.
>
> These things dont happen with ppp or DHCP which are more adapted to ptp
> links like cellular.
>
> Alex
>
> Le 28/07/2016 à 17:10, Templin, Fred L a écrit :
>
>> RA doesn’t provide nearly the same configuration flexibility as DHCPv6.
>> RA also
>>
>> doesn’t have Rebind/Renew/Release messags that can be used to manage
>>
>> mobiole devices. And, RA also does not have DHCPv6 Security. (RA does have
>>
>> SEND, but I have not heard of that as being widely deployed). Finally,
>> RA does
>>
>> not have the back-end database management capabilities that are built into
>>
>> common public domain DHCPv6 implementations.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks – Fred
>>
>> fred.l.templin@boeing.com
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:*Lorenzo Colitti [mailto:lorenzo@google.com]
>> *Sent:* Thursday, July 28, 2016 7:57 AM
>> *To:* Bernie Volz (volz) <volz@cisco.com>
>> *Cc:* otroan@employees.org; Ian Farrer <ianfarrer@gmx.com>; Templin,
>> Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>; <dhcwg@ietf.org> <dhcwg@ietf.org>
>> *Subject:* Re: [dhcwg] MTU option for DHCPv6?
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 10:52 PM, Bernie Volz (volz) <volz@cisco.com
>> <mailto:volz@cisco.com>> wrote:
>>
>>     And, note that Fred had indicated "I'm operating on a link where I
>>     don't need to get any configuration information from RS/RA -
>>     everything comes from DHCPv6." So, looks like at least he wants
>>     DHCPv6 option(s).
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes, but it doesn't have to be that way. Sending an RA would work just
>> as well. Like all RA parameters, it also has the advantage that it is
>> easier to update dynamically if needed. Doing that in DHCPv6 is more
>> difficult, because at least as of RFC3315bis, it looks like reconfigure
>> messages MUST be discarded if they do not include authentication.
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> dhcwg mailing list
>> dhcwg@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> dhcwg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
>