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

Philip Homburg <> Fri, 27 November 2020 12:58 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95C063A0B1A for <>; Fri, 27 Nov 2020 04:58:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.499
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.399, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UwixgoPzehYo for <>; Fri, 27 Nov 2020 04:58:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:888:1044:10:2a0:c9ff:fe9f:17a9]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D05603A0B18 for <>; Fri, 27 Nov 2020 04:58:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (localhost [::ffff:]) by with esmtp (TLS version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305) (Smail #157) id m1kidK6-00001eC; Fri, 27 Nov 2020 13:58:02 +0100
Message-Id: <>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] How do you solve 3GPP issue if neither operator nor handset supports PD?
From: Philip Homburg <>
References: <> <> <> <>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 27 Nov 2020 11:08:14 +0100 ." <>
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2020 13:58:01 +0100
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: Fri, 27 Nov 2020 12:58:14 -0000

> You seem to propose pushing all the cost of ephemeral addressing
> to the end-users.  I doubt that the problem is solvable in the
> sense of finding a way it can be deployed.  Look forward to a draft.

Ephemeral addressing is a fact of life. Yes we can pretend that the whole 
world can use static addresses, but that is just living in a fantasy world.

Ephemeral addressing is currently deployed. For common cases software has
checks that something has changed and reacts. Of course, this fails for 
uncommon cases.

> > So that is something we should work out. I.e., specify that related informat
> ion
> > has to go in a single message. Maybe a bit that says this a point-to-point
> > link. Maybe a counter to allow the host to verify that all parts have been
> > received.
> Now you are designing a new configuration protocol...

I'm improving an existing configuration protocol. From day one RAs provide
configuration information related to a link. What we find is that in a
world where devices move around, RAs needs to provide some extra information
to allow a device to figure out whether it's link has still the same config
or that something has changed.