Re: [v6ops] How do you solve 3GPP issue if neither operator nor handset supports PD?

[Mikael Abrahamsson <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, 24 Nov 2020, [e-mail] wrote:

> The 3GPP model is in may ways very similar to the model I described in P2P Ethernet.

The 3GPP model is almost identical to PPP, HDLC, ATM, IPIP or whatever 
that doesn't have an ethernet header and isn't a broadcast medium.

> It's not traditional address assignment happening on that link. The upstream router does not have a connected route and glean adjacency (address resolution required) towards the host.
>
> When a RA with a /64 PIO is sent and the mobile terminal does tethering, it's much more like prefix delegation of that /64.
>
> In a traditional RA+PIO with L=1, the router states:
> This prefix is directly connected between us and requires address resolution.
> If A=1 && plen == 64 you can generate an address from this prefix.
>
> In the P2P Ethernet/3GPP case it says:
> This prefix is not used on the link between us.
> The prefix is dedicated to you, and I promise to install a route like:
>  ipv6 route <prefix> p2p-interface | interface, NH pointing at you.
> You can if you like configure an address on the interface on the upstream link,
> as the router will forward traffic to anything in that prefix blindly.
> (you aren't strictly doing SLAAC at that point though.)
>
> In the latter case the prefix-length can be <1-128>.
>
> Now, if someone else could more succinctly express that difference...

I don't think it should be inferred by the link type, I think similar to 
PIO-X it should be explicit. For broadcast media we put in some 
constraints, but there it gets more complicated. If we could start 
defining the "hey, I routed the entire PIO to you" somehow for P2P then we 
could continue with that for broadcast medium in a follow-up RFC.

For reference:

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-pioxfolks-6man-pio-exclusive-bit-02

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: [e-mail]