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

"Templin (US), Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> Wed, 25 November 2020 14:23 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 136F93A142D for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Nov 2020 06:23:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 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_H2=-0.001, 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 osrA4P8ABhA6 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Nov 2020 06:23:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from clt-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net (clt-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net [130.76.144.162]) (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 C6F723A142E for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Nov 2020 06:23:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by clt-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net (8.15.2/8.15.2/DOWNSTREAM_MBSOUT) with SMTP id 0APENhAV016348; Wed, 25 Nov 2020 09:23:46 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=boeing.com; s=boeing-s1912; t=1606314226; bh=cWh/BTyot7p5wTmaTfrFfTVQoR7gD/O4ZrLVvpS2RbU=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=OCWK5zk4Tx9qan1szDb/ARiaIJa77Adpk069KDAJ8McjEkw4VcnGyo0PoIAl6NVis t+ciAi+TLYogQJ7Os5paA+AKHtEiPxqabPA4Jg6TW/HRKHb9wQnj2pkrpPCWpVbzbW r0Rg/RirMhrcRzAXY/Q486vSNITS3S65Q1uOhY2G6P2JTqsnHglg0qLNLKJoXcdOMO aEyg+Pfde1wklyAZ/qN8RelDhqLIX3ca9uqkDhd34TpJPsGDwUMzkGERNt0oSQBcmQ YX7vH8SHnFPtxMk4IUJ3OEWXfSojA0X8NA4BKz7vDyvjfKVUVjO/V54lCVD9Lc126S GwZ66d2W6CX7Q==
Received: from XCH16-07-11.nos.boeing.com (xch16-07-11.nos.boeing.com [144.115.66.113]) by clt-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net (8.15.2/8.15.2/8.15.2/UPSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTPS id 0APENe7i016300 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 25 Nov 2020 09:23:40 -0500
Received: from XCH16-07-10.nos.boeing.com (144.115.66.112) by XCH16-07-11.nos.boeing.com (144.115.66.113) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384) id 15.1.2044.4; Wed, 25 Nov 2020 06:23:39 -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; Wed, 25 Nov 2020 06:23:39 -0800
From: "Templin (US), Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
To: David Allan I <david.i.allan@ericsson.com>, Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.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: AdbCrBJZQpt+0a0wT/6DvMi5tarEVwABLiWgACFgsUA=
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2020 14:23:39 +0000
Message-ID: <3e8c14c4c3da4909b4642a84315299bb@boeing.com>
References: <d839b04e8c6840edaf042478964ce793@boeing.com> <BY5PR15MB37150A20A6CD1144A22A3F9AD0FB0@BY5PR15MB3715.namprd15.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <BY5PR15MB37150A20A6CD1144A22A3F9AD0FB0@BY5PR15MB3715.namprd15.prod.outlook.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: A7573BBFA7DEF9825CA0FE6C40404EB8F4A6C4BD4B0E98F1D0735EAC450398B82000:8
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/K6iw5rUJQHBtOn_rl0sYrsmpgNI>
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, 25 Nov 2020 14:23:52 -0000


> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Allan I [mailto:david.i.allan@ericsson.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2020 2:29 PM
> To: Templin (US), Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>om>; Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>om>; ipv6@ietf.org
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: [v6ops] How do you solve 3GPP issue if neither operator nor handset supports PD?
> 
> FWIW for a 5G UE, the SMF assigns the interface ID used for LLA etc. as part of the PDU session setup.  See TS24.501 clause 9.11.4.10.

Wouldn't it be better if the interface ID contained a useful piece of information such
as a delegated prefix, instead of just a bag of bits?

Fred

> Cheers
> D
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ipv6 <ipv6-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Templin (US), Fred L
> Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2020 1:52 PM
> To: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>om>; ipv6@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [v6ops] How do you solve 3GPP issue if neither operator nor handset supports PD?
> 
> Alex, see below:
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ipv6 [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alexandre
> > Petrescu
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2020 1:33 PM
> > To: ipv6@ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: [v6ops] How do you solve 3GPP issue if neither operator nor handset supports PD?
> >
> >
> > Le 24/11/2020 à 17:44, Templin (US), Fred L a écrit :
> > > Getting what I said earlier onto this thread, I think we should be
> > > discussing the LLA-based PD scheme specified in:
> > >
> > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-templin-6man-lla-type/
> > >
> > > What is unique and compelling about this scheme is that it brings
> > > down two birds with one stone; in a single RS/RA exchange, the
> > > mobile node receives both 1) an IPv6 PD, and 2) an LLA that is guaranteed to be unique on the link without having to apply DAD.
> >
> > YEs for 1), but for 2) one would also consider the IPv6CP part of ppp
> > and the PDP protocols.  These two protocols are also involved in the
> > negotiation of an IID, LLA or even a GUA some times, on that link.
> 
> I assume this exchange happens even before the first IPv6 ND message exchange over the link? If so, then if the PDP protocols
> convey an OMNI LLA even before any IPv6 ND message exchange then the "PD" operation will already be complete since the OMNI
> LLA already contains the delegated prefix. Would that be a useful simplification?
> 
> Thanks - Fred
> 
> > Delegating a prefix is typically associated by an operation of
> > insertion of an entry in a routing table.  That entry should have a
> > next hop address.  That address could be an LL address or a GUA.
> > These are negotiated by these IPv6CP or PDP protocols.
> >
> > If it is too complicated to make IPv6-PD option to use the addresses
> > created by IPv6CP or by PDP as nexthop, then one could delegate a
> > prefix without pointing to a nexthop, but using that old p2p trick.
> >
> > Also, the suggestion of this draft of using another LL address comes
> > down to associating several LL addresses to an interface; because the
> > LL address made by PDP or IPv6CP is always there.  If such a 2nd LL
> > address is associated to an interface, but is not used in the Gateway
> > as a nexthop field, then one wonders why bothering forming it at all.
> > An interface must always have one LL address, and that is given by
> > IPv6CP or PDP, I think.
> >
> > I am not saying it is not a good idea, though.
> >
> > Alex
> >
> > >
> > > The idea for this LLA-based PD scheme is as follows:
> > >
> > > 1) The requesting router creates a temporary LLA using RFC4941(bis)
> > > and sets a prefix length indication inside the LLA itself. The RR
> > > then uses the LLA as the IPv6 source address of an RS message to send to the delegating router.
> > >
> > > 2) When the delegating router receives the RS, it sees that the IPv6
> > > source is an RFC4941(bis) address with a non-zero prefix length
> > > indication. The DR then coordinates with the DHCPv6 server to request a PD of the length indicated by the RR.
> > >
> > > 3) When the DR receives the PD from the DHCPv6 server, it creates an
> > > OMNI LLA by embedding the delegated prefix in the IID of fe80::/64, e.g., as fe80::2001:db8:1:2.
> > > The DR then sets a prefix length indication in the OMNI LLA, and
> > > sets the LLA as the destination address of an RA message to send back to the RR.
> > >
> > > 4) When the RR receives the RA message, it sees that the destination
> > > is an OMNI LLA with a non-zero prefix length. The RR then uses the
> > > embedded prefix within the OMNI LLA as its delegated prefix, and
> > > regards the Router Lifetime as the time at which the delegated prefix needs to be renewed.
> > >
> > > Questions?
> > >
> > > Fred
> > >
> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative
> > > Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> > ipv6@ietf.org
> > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------