Re: [dhcwg] DHCPv6 and IPv6ND

Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com> Thu, 16 November 2017 12:15 UTC

Return-Path: <alexandru.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 CF6FB129482 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Nov 2017 04:15:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.633
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.633 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] 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 rs3kfRqPnu2V for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Nov 2017 04:15:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from oxalide-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr (oxalide-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr [132.168.224.13]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9510D12947A for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Nov 2017 04:15:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by oxalide-sys.extra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id vAGCFe5C079737; Thu, 16 Nov 2017 13:15:40 +0100
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 3072D200CCD; Thu, 16 Nov 2017 13:15:40 +0100 (CET)
Received: from muguet2.intra.cea.fr (muguet2.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.7]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E33E207CA9; Thu, 16 Nov 2017 13:15:40 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [132.166.84.247] ([132.166.84.247]) by muguet2.intra.cea.fr (8.15.2/8.15.2/CEAnet-Intranet-out-1.4) with ESMTP id vAGCFbQE028056; Thu, 16 Nov 2017 13:15:38 +0100
To: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
Cc: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>, dhcwg <dhcwg@ietf.org>, "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>
References: <cf2e41a05fd742a3b576ee317c5392f6@XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.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> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93300A07B9D1@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
From: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <994e25d4-5033-8b7e-a032-198ab975d29f@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2017 13:15:36 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93300A07B9D1@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: fr
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/vKm1nkfsJHTU9pqb3oRTAF3FThQ>
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 12:15:48 -0000


Le 16/11/2017 à 12:57, mohamed.boucadair@orange.com a écrit :
> 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).

Maybe they can not.  But until that is fixed we can not talk about 
DHCPv6-and-IPv6ND on cellular networks.

And I dont see that fixing happening.

Alex

> 
> 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