Re: [dhcwg] MTU option for DHCPv6?

Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> Fri, 29 July 2016 15:16 UTC

Return-Path: <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.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 1C95912D772 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Jul 2016 08:16:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.333
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.333 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] 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 WRRJKOxifq75 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Jul 2016 08:16:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sainfoin-out.extra.cea.fr (sainfoin-out.extra.cea.fr [132.167.192.145]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 56ABD12D17A for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 Jul 2016 08:16:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by sainfoin.extra.cea.fr (8.15.2/8.15.2/CEAnet-Internet-out-2.4) with ESMTP id u6TFGhpV001779 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 Jul 2016 17:16:43 +0200
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id A6C5120C7E0 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 Jul 2016 17:16:43 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from muguet1.intra.cea.fr (muguet1.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.6]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D77120C7A1 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 Jul 2016 17:16:43 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [10.8.34.184] (is227335.intra.cea.fr [10.8.34.184]) by muguet1.intra.cea.fr (8.15.2/8.15.2/CEAnet-Intranet-out-1.4) with ESMTP id u6TFGhs4014270 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 Jul 2016 17:16:43 +0200
To: dhcwg@ietf.org
References: <8c706ad593cc403d9e738c7aafec8360@XCH15-05-05.nw.nos.boeing.com> <5671d2f3bf364bec9b70ab8cbb9cd2a9@XCH-ALN-003.cisco.com> <9db5a86d50314519b4fcc4589717f802@XCH15-05-05.nw.nos.boeing.com> <f98d75f73d224798a406084fdb4cdedc@XCH-ALN-003.cisco.com> <F22A046E-27FA-4EED-9699-70A6B3D49A66@gmx.com> <20AC7B4D-430C-4D56-8D5C-1E134AEEDA76@employees.org> <516a0ed770414d0095ca69905c3a83a3@XCH-ALN-003.cisco.com> <CAKD1Yr2nx_GeyZJ7YA3b1zktRUG-yvkRQKOVywzg0i7s=WTyaw@mail.gmail.com> <4725f6ba7bbf4b9ab5c4c23a04f41518@XCH15-05-05.nw.nos.boeing.com> <f72eede6-83b8-80bb-573c-17580d0e02a5@gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr23QkpXpoZa1pxzZz-HTqQQDBS0k=jyvvssivjQqmraZw@mail.gmail.com> <7d3a9eb3-cee3-d855-0bc6-0c397b29a963@gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr1DqXe4PRu+oZc=euhGmtNk-_n7jC6H-kL8AiL79a-7bA@mail.gmail.com> <594ac115-c3da-e56d-c1eb-2108325e0ac9@gmail.com>
From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5f753d4e-8616-543b-fba4-d51f78c26baf@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2016 17:16:43 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <594ac115-c3da-e56d-c1eb-2108325e0ac9@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/SeoffrxONj4HX2ivcRWFG-NXacM>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] MTU option for DHCPv6?
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Fri, 29 Jul 2016 15:16:47 -0000


Le 29/07/2016 à 17:14, Alexandre Petrescu a écrit :
>
>
> Le 29/07/2016 à 16:20, Lorenzo Colitti a écrit :
>> On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 2:27 AM, Alexandre Petrescu
>> <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com
>> <mailto:alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Alexandre, that doesn't make sense. The only specified mechanism
>> for IPv6 on 3GPP links is RAs.
>>
>>
>> I would doubt so.  I think DHCPv6 is there in the 3GPP specs too.
>>
>>
>> DHCPv6 PD (only) was added in release 10. SLAAC has been there for
>> at least a decade, I think.
>>
>>
>> There is no Ethernet on cellular links, where did you get that
>> from?
>>
>>
>>> From packet dumps, looking at the headers.
>>
>>
>> Just because the driver of a device you own pretends that the 3GPP
>>  link is an Ethernet link doesn't mean that there's Ethernet on the
>>  air.
>
> I agree, there may be no Ethernet headers in the air of cellular
> links.
>
> But there is an additional indicator.  Companies like Huawei and
> Sierra have requested and paid for IEEE OUI numbers that they use to
> form MAC addresses on cellular links (Huawei E392 4G LTE dongle,
> Sierra Wireless Airprime module).  These IEEE OUI numbers and MAC
> addresses are obviously not part of 3GPP specs either, yet they are
> there printed on the boards, in the driver, etc.  I suspect these
> MAC addresses do get sent over the air on cellular links.
>
> Add to this that in some cases this is on USB too.
>
> This is completely unspecified behaviour (no IPv6-over-USB, no 3GPP
> specs mention IEEE addressing, etc).
>
>> Look at an Android phone and you'll see something completely
>> different - no Ethernet address and a different ARPHRD_xxx value.
>
> Somehow I dont understand ARPHRD_xxx value.
>
> I wonder what chipset the Android phone in question uses to
> communicate on cellular?
>
> I am asking because I just got hold of a brand new Huwaei Mate 8
> phone running Androing,
                         ^^H^Hd (Android)

> and I still have to figure whether this uses these Huawei IEEE OUI
> MAC addresses on cellular links (like the Huawei dongle does).
>
>> It is a bug when the Host configures so many IPv6 addresses on its
>>  interface.  It's looking like getting out of hand.
>>
>>
>> RFC 7934 claims the opposite.
>
> This is an excellent RFC that makes it an excellent case to deliver
> many addresses to Host, instead of just one.
>
> But there are a couple of ways to satisfy that requirement (give more
> addresses to a Host) and one of the ways is pretty bad.  RA a /64 to
> a Host is not the right way to deliver many addresses to a Host.
>
> Unless you agree that a Prefix Delegation during RA operation may be
> a good idea?
>
> Alex
>
> _______________________________________________ dhcwg mailing list
> dhcwg@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg