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

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Wed, 25 November 2020 22:27 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
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 B3A293A1F13 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Nov 2020 14:27:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 DurRpgvjwjyk for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Nov 2020 14:27:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9ED663A0CB0 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Nov 2020 14:27:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABDEE389E9; Wed, 25 Nov 2020 17:28:43 -0500 (EST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id MAeBvAxCzK-1; Wed, 25 Nov 2020 17:28:43 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31250389E8; Wed, 25 Nov 2020 17:28:43 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5D2366B; Wed, 25 Nov 2020 17:27:19 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] How do you solve 3GPP issue if neither operator nor handset supports PD?
In-Reply-To: <CAO42Z2wF_JsEYfCDxDP+cVRQX2EiVN=gjjt+rctjTD0+agKk=g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABNhwV2-dH81CY4wSisV8BU-7H9m5a1xYMqTMecRxhNqZe=ApQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr1xV179LZ7Kxtk5mGruJcJ+BpGb2heBBy4ORtRU7bfvqw@mail.gmail.com> <CAMGpriWqnmL0qo0Hm=b+GbzcdCuXz6PM5aq8owE7-=ty5pDFsw@mail.gmail.com> <1DB65027-BEF2-4C0A-ACF4-C979DA7444C2@employees.org> <m1khXWs-00007wC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <47150D97-27D7-4AFD-8418-692D68D09828@employees.org> <m1khXol-0000MEC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <BD254B32-FAAE-4433-9CF5-2AF19275CA96@employees.org> <87b38a166eac450db943e005611974bf@huawei.com> <m1khZRX-00001XC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <27311.1606325147@localhost> <CAO42Z2wF_JsEYfCDxDP+cVRQX2EiVN=gjjt+rctjTD0+agKk=g@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2020 17:27:19 -0500
Message-ID: <6063.1606343239@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/Nw4IzwidcdOIlyFPZ6KoOxWzxQE>
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 22:27:24 -0000

Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com> wrote:
    > This would have been making a specific layer 2 involved in layer 3,
    > coupling layer 3 advancement to that layer 2.

So why does it matter at all?
The point is to make things work better for the set of layer-2 that use PPP.
That set is rather large.

    > IPv6 has moved away from layer 2 extensions or protocols to operate or
    > configure layer 3, and the advantage is that options can be added to a
    > protocol that operates at the IPv6 layer, and it automatically works over
    > all current and future link layers.

That's an interesting statement, which I don't think is at all relevent.
On what authority to make this statement?

The document explains that this is about announcing capabilities so that the
Layer-3 configuration mechanism can be tuned better.

We could do this in layer-3, but we usually need to decide, (in a BMS),
BEFORE starting the RA daemon, if we should be allocating a /64 to the link or not.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide