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

Philip Homburg <pch-ipv6-ietf-7@u-1.phicoh.com> Fri, 27 November 2020 13:15 UTC

Return-Path: <pch-b9D3CB0F5@u-1.phicoh.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 285533A0B89 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Nov 2020 05:15:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.918
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.918 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] 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 u5Ghzhg1VUrR for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Nov 2020 05:15:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (stereo.hq.phicoh.net [130.37.15.35]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6AD843A0B87 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Nov 2020 05:15:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (localhost [::ffff:127.0.0.1]) by stereo.hq.phicoh.net with esmtp (TLS version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305) (Smail #157) id m1kidWT-0000FlC; Fri, 27 Nov 2020 14:10:49 +0100
Message-Id: <m1kidWT-0000FlC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
To: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [v6ops] How do you solve 3GPP issue if neither operator nor handset supports PD?
From: Philip Homburg <pch-ipv6-ietf-7@u-1.phicoh.com>
Sender: pch-b9D3CB0F5@u-1.phicoh.com
References: <m1kiLjK-0000EaC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <7BB64BE0-6A62-4711-91E4-1393EDC0809E@employees.org> <m1kiaW6-0000IFC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <074a3f13-732a-a495-9a6f-5d2c2e1d7961@foobar.org>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 27 Nov 2020 10:16:40 +0000 ." <074a3f13-732a-a495-9a6f-5d2c2e1d7961@foobar.org>
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2020 14:10:48 +0100
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/CJ5Ou4yC4auyHhrU_qX0uCBKocQ>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2020 13:15:57 -0000

>You can't run a flexible address assignment protocol without a 
>provisioning database. ND is typically implemented in o/s kernels, so 
>interfacing this with user-mode radius is architecturally troublesome.

It is my experience that RAs are sent by a user space daemon. Maybe
I'm wrong. Which kernels send RAs directly from the kernel. How does the 
RDNSS option get passed to the kernel?

>As a separate issue, adding this level of complexity also goes against 
>many of the design principals that ND was intended to fulfil.  It could 
>be argued that these principals are already being infringed on, but a PD 
>extension would take this several steps further.

Can you explain? RA provides hosts with a prefix to configure addresses from.
How is providing a device with a bigger prefix that can be be used to number
downstream networks are significant departure?

Beyond that we have a flash renumbering problem. In my opinion we should 
try to fix that in ND instead of letting hosts guess whether something has
changed or not.