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

"Templin (US), Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> Mon, 30 November 2020 16:08 UTC

Return-Path: <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.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 D52053A0E84 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Nov 2020 08:08:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.119
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.119 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=boeing.com
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 Hneb-V7KCXWS for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Nov 2020 08:08:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from clt-mbsout-02.mbs.boeing.net (clt-mbsout-02.mbs.boeing.net [130.76.144.163]) (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 E0E193A0E3C for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Nov 2020 08:08:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by clt-mbsout-02.mbs.boeing.net (8.15.2/8.15.2/DOWNSTREAM_MBSOUT) with SMTP id 0AUG8klb006757; Mon, 30 Nov 2020 11:08:47 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=boeing.com; s=boeing-s1912; t=1606752527; bh=4tGKzoiyfWttCaEUuBnl6zXSlr3b+fSuHk9jOcg+8Bc=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:From; b=UBCO6mAUmnQNW+tVzQhGPvqSQBNu4aiLGdcSUCklqIb81lcQHwDCwbMAyvzUoFWPZ 5D+Rv7oP2nZ0vMiXnsawUfvW5qAr/ejltNd9V7BQujSlAQy4ru81HNAShqcVzubSwk zaJ6XUsBkRRFoHtO0ZbBOlobgoe/AYW5GlubJU0obbD27IgjdUllz8BZfP9/xHwsyj WFNf+UfoxCeK81EdpD3WHNxw2Fb5ivDNmVbq9+eP8C/4HW4QKq742IlNQ81DUmMvde k6lEeM31VoI2Y9N/CIjxtWG3d67M9nrGYsmff3FIE0LAcwuMJXSYw4igeXTn/sUzUJ wFtou6CeWwZ/g==
Received: from XCH16-07-07.nos.boeing.com (xch16-07-07.nos.boeing.com [144.115.66.109]) by clt-mbsout-02.mbs.boeing.net (8.15.2/8.15.2/8.15.2/UPSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTPS id 0AUG8cf5006598 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 30 Nov 2020 11:08:39 -0500
Received: from XCH16-07-10.nos.boeing.com (144.115.66.112) by XCH16-07-07.nos.boeing.com (144.115.66.109) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384) id 15.1.2044.4; Mon, 30 Nov 2020 08:08:37 -0800
Received: from XCH16-07-10.nos.boeing.com ([fe80::1522:f068:5766:53b5]) by XCH16-07-10.nos.boeing.com ([fe80::1522:f068:5766:53b5%2]) with mapi id 15.01.2044.004; Mon, 30 Nov 2020 08:08:37 -0800
From: "Templin (US), Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
To: Philip Homburg <pch-ipv6-ietf-7@u-1.phicoh.com>, "ipv6@ietf.org" <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] How do you solve 3GPP issue if neither operator nor handset supports PD?
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] How do you solve 3GPP issue if neither operator nor handset supports PD?
Thread-Index: AdbHMomsQQ7dreUOSIme39e+DKI+OA==
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2020 16:08:37 +0000
Message-ID: <2c87c61340de451390a72eb42ff02c59@boeing.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [137.137.12.6]
x-tm-snts-smtp: 991270CD3808812F169559078332CA64AAB125618C2C928B62CE55C1EF017B882000:8
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/IvmP-wgDS0Kq_j-qM3lJkmxbNF8>
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: Mon, 30 Nov 2020 16:08:59 -0000

Philip, your statements don't match with the reality of Duplicate Address Detection.
DAD is required if there is not going to be any differentiation between LLA generation
mechanisms. I want to be able to avoid DAD whenever possible - certainly in the
aviation domain this is very important. And, having the LLA Type field would aid in
capitalizing on cases when DAD can be avoided.

Fred

> -----Original Message-----
> From: pch-b9D3CB0F5@u-1.phicoh.com [mailto:pch-b9D3CB0F5@u-1.phicoh.com] On Behalf Of Philip Homburg
> Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 8:04 AM
> To: ipv6@ietf.org
> Cc: Templin (US), Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
> Subject: Re: [v6ops] How do you solve 3GPP issue if neither operator nor handset supports PD?
> 
> > Having the Type field
> > would allow an administrator to manually configure an
> > administratively-assigned LLA without risk of colliding with another
> > LLA that was configured via one of the multiple and growing numbers
> > of LLA autoconfiguration methods. This is true today, and will
> > become even more true as more and more LLA autoconfiguration methods
> > are standardized.
> 
> Obviously, a manually configured LLA doesn't conflict with EUI-64. We can
> assume that an administrator is smart enough to not set the middle two bytes
> of the IID to FFFE. So that doesn't happen.
> 
> The chance that a manually configured IID collides with a pseudo random is 1 in
> 2^64. Realistically that doesn't happen.
> 
> In practice we also see that nodes with manually configured IIDs have all other
> IID mechanisms disabled.
> 
> Any future IID mechanism that does not try to use IID bits for other purposes
> is pseudo random. So there no risk of collisions.