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

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

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D52053A0E84 for <>; Mon, 30 Nov 2020 08:08:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.119
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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Hneb-V7KCXWS for <>; Mon, 30 Nov 2020 08:08:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E0E193A0E3C for <>; Mon, 30 Nov 2020 08:08:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (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;; 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 ( []) by (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 ( by ( 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 ([fe80::1522:f068:5766:53b5]) by ([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" <>
To: Philip Homburg <>, "" <>
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: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
x-tm-snts-smtp: 991270CD3808812F169559078332CA64AAB125618C2C928B62CE55C1EF017B882000:8
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-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.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: [] On Behalf Of Philip Homburg
> Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 8:04 AM
> To:
> Cc: Templin (US), Fred L <>
> 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.