Re: 64share v2

Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> Wed, 11 November 2020 09:06 UTC

Return-Path: <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.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 4C5D93A0F0F for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 01:06:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.67
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.67 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD=1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] 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 tCF7JiVljSTH for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 01:06:57 -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 53D713A0D95 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 01:06:57 -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 0AB96t24000983 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 10:06:55 +0100
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 55376201D4E for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 10:06:55 +0100 (CET)
Received: from muguet1-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr (muguet1-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.12]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AFEF201D1B for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 10:06:55 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [10.11.240.33] ([10.11.240.33]) by muguet1-sys.intra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id 0AB96tIq031672 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 10:06:55 +0100
Subject: Re: 64share v2
To: ipv6@ietf.org
References: <CAD6AjGR-NE_sJ_jp7nAT6OvNkcdE9qoWuGEiiVW7r9YtsQvbbw@mail.gmail.com> <43ebd660-3df6-bc9c-2ef3-bbfd72a64229@gmail.com> <CAD6AjGQRyDDhVtunyCrWDBABG576oi=5xd1Lmz5=QicOJ6YsNA@mail.gmail.com> <d591a034-b629-cf6a-8211-b9243528db79@gmail.com>
From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <dd043cc6-6e45-08fb-f316-cb93142d83de@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2020 10:06:54 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.4.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <d591a034-b629-cf6a-8211-b9243528db79@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: fr
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/EdJw76TjLFaL8LbAyofaB-zE_-4>
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: Wed, 11 Nov 2020 09:06:59 -0000


Le 11/11/2020 à 00:06, Brian E Carpenter a écrit :
> On 11-Nov-20 11:03, Ca By wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 1:49 PM Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com <mailto:brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>      On 10-Nov-20 21:10, Ca By wrote:
>>      > Folks,
>>      >
>>      > In an effort to progress the conversation, i created a simple and rough pre-00 i-d (as ietf is not accepting submissions now) for your review and comment
>>      >
>>      > https://pastebin.com/duyYRkzG
>>
>>      I'm having difficulty reconciling that with what I read at:
>>      https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/0d7lSiP_78td3vWBlMnVvmp7UAo/
>>
>>
>>      If that email is correct, the 3GPP model is tightly bound to
>>      the /64 boundary and to the notion of giving a single address
>>      and predefined Interface ID to the UE.
>>
>>
>>
>> This is not a correct summary. I believe rfc6459 describes it clearly. The ue receives an off-link  /64, the iid is simply a hint and typically not used. This is why rfc7278 works.
> 
> Thanks for the clarification.
> 
>>
>>      Also, since /64
>>      is still fixed by the addressing architecture, and RA PIOs
>>      are constrained by that architecture, I don't understand how
>>      a UE can be "given a prefix such as a /56 using RA".
>>
>>
>> The i-d is to requests the 3gpp to make a change to allow < 64 via RA
> 
> RFC 6459 says "The 3GPP network allocates each default bearer a
> unique /64 prefix" but doesn't seem to explain how that prefix is
> conveyed to the UE. It does say that the suggested IID is conveyed
> by "layer-2 signaling". If the allocated prefix is only conveyed
> by an RA/PIO there is something unconventional going on, i.e. the
> UE is allowed to deduce *from the RA* that it owns the entire /64,
> which is not all what applies on a conventional LAN. (Yes, I do see
> how that enables RFC 7278, but this unconventional semantic is
> not all obvious from RFC 6459.)
 >
 >
> 
> So if that's right, I think we do have a problem. If we (=IETF+3GPP)
> decide to allow <64 prefixes in RA/PIO during the establishment of
> a PDP context, that seems to be not only an unconventional use
> of RA but also one that directly contravenes the /64 rule in the
> addressing architecture.

I agree.

> 
> I'm not against either of those things, but I think some very
> explicit wording is needed to explain what's going on and how it
> is different from a conventional LAN.

I agree.

But it comes down again to the problem of length of an 'IID'.

Alex

> 
>     Brian
> 
>>
>>
>>
>>      Perhaps someone familiar with 3GPP internals, e.g. the authors
>>      of RFC6459, can comment?
>>
>>      Regards
>>          Brian
>>
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>