Re: DHCPv6-PD is fine

[Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

Le 10/11/2020 à 13:16, Vasilenko Eduard a écrit :
> The less tethering - the more additional SIMs and Modems to sell. 
> Blocking DHCP PD is the revenue generating technology. Is it by 
> coincidence?

One might be tempted to think along these lines yes.  But.

> If you would split /64 on /66 - would it resolve the root cause? Are
>  you trying to undermine additional revenue stream?

I am not sure the question is asked rhetorically?

Anyways, there are many new ways in which to generate new revenue
streams for cellular networks.  6G is one if I had to mention but one.

The mobile WiFi hotspots sold by cellular operators are other examples:
that single SIM accomodating multiple WiFi devices is generating
additional revenue streams from selling a device which is an additional
SIM card for an owner who already owns a SIM card in a personal smartphone.

The Tesla cars whose cellular plans are pre-paid entirely to mobile
operators all over the world are another example of new revenue streams
which still use one SIM card per a group of devices in the car.
Moreover, many drivers plug their SIM-enabled smartphones on these new
car's dashboards, effectively bringing in multiple SIM cards and
computers in the car.

Overall, I dont think there is any reduction in revenue stream provoked
by extending the network. The value of the network might grow with its
size, is said, and I agree.

Alex

> Ed/
>> -----Original Message----- From: ipv6 
>> [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Alexandre Petrescu 
>> Sent: 10 ноября 2020 г. 13:21 To: [e-mail] Subject: Re: 
>> DHCPv6-PD is fine
>> 
>> This is a personal point of view, I am not employed at manufacturer
>> or operator.
>> 
>> Le 09/11/2020 à 22:23, Ted Lemon a écrit :
>>> On Nov 9, 2020, at 4:00 PM, Havard Eidnes 
>>> <he=[e-mail] 
>>> <mailto:he=[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>>>>> From what I've been reading in this thread, in the mobile 
>>>>>> world the problem isn't DHCPv6-PD, but the cellular world 
>>>>>> having not adopted it, or even blocked it (ref discussion 
>>>>>> of mobile modems blocking DHCP packets).
>>>> 
>>>> Is this lack of flexibility for all intents and purposes 
>>>> imprinted into silicon?  That would ... be an extremely 
>>>> effective road-block for practical deployment if one wanted to
>>>>  make a change where DHCP should additionally be used.
>>> 
>>> I’m having trouble envisioning how this would even be possible. 
>>> Is there an IP stack on the chip that has a firewall in it that 
>>> blocks DHCP?
>> 
>> Yes.
>> 
>>> This woud be surprising.
>> 
>> YEs to me too it was surprising to see how many things these modems
>> do.
>> 
>> I was surprised first when my laptop sent a DHCP request, received
>>  an answer, but the operator told me they did not receive such a 
>> request and they did not generate an answer either.  It's because 
>> there was a DHCP proxy in between that I could not see.  It's on 
>> the modem.
>> 
>> There is a whole operating system running in modern modems of 
>> smartphones. They have their own IP addresses inside.  Some times 
>> they even run DHCP servers inside.
>> 
>> Looking at the open source efforts to make an OS for these modems 
>> it is possible to get a hint of how advanced they are.  IIRC one is
>> called Hexagon MiniVM.
>> 
>>> Why would they go to that effort?
>> 
>> In order to protect (some humans at some computers at some) 
>> operator.
>> 
>> The legislation requests that the owner of a smartphone has access
>>  to that smartphone, i.e. to log in and install whatever s/he 
>> wishes; as a side note this is different than CPEs where the 
>> legislation only requests the GPLed source codes of CPE to be made
>>  available upon request.
>> 
>> On these smartphones, a malicious user might install malicious 
>> software that could attack the (~) operator.  Other than outright 
>> vicious attacks some programmers might want to play with a home 
>> made DHCP client on the ARM part of the smartphone (not the modem).
>> That client would disrupt functioning of the already exisitng DHCP
>> server running in the modem.  I suspect that is why smartphone
>> manufacturer, under guidance of modem manufacturer and in agreement
>> with (~) operator, effectively block UDP port numbers of DHCPv6.
>> They block other people's DHCP and let only their own 
>> non-documented variant of DHCP proxy through.
>> 
>> That is my supposition, or rather a speculation.  It means that I 
>> might be wrong. But that does not improve the situation of absence
>>  of DHCPv6-PD in smartphones.
>> 
>> Alex
>> 
>>> 
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [e-mail] Administrative
>>> Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [e-mail] Administrative 
>> Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------