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

Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com> Tue, 24 November 2020 13:59 UTC

Return-Path: <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.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 F30523A0E15 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Nov 2020 05:59:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.019
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.019 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-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
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 VUVTVhZ_g_LC for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Nov 2020 05:59:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A2B9E3A0E18 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Nov 2020 05:59:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fraeml743-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.147.200]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4CgQYd67YCz67HGM for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Nov 2020 21:56:53 +0800 (CST)
Received: from msceml706-chm.china.huawei.com (10.219.141.145) by fraeml743-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.224) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2106.2; Tue, 24 Nov 2020 14:59:27 +0100
Received: from msceml703-chm.china.huawei.com (10.219.141.161) by msceml706-chm.china.huawei.com (10.219.141.145) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2106.2; Tue, 24 Nov 2020 16:59:26 +0300
Received: from msceml703-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.219.141.161]) by msceml703-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.219.141.161]) with mapi id 15.01.2106.002; Tue, 24 Nov 2020 16:59:26 +0300
From: Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com>
To: "otroan@employees.org" <otroan@employees.org>, Philip Homburg <pch-ipv6-ietf-6@u-1.phicoh.com>
CC: 6man WG <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: AQHWwWyB4Lub7t3bVESvC0PbrYUO2KnWTGYAgABVowCAAGBbAIAAN2WT///PBICAADYay///2c0AgAA22QA=
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2020 13:59:26 +0000
Message-ID: <87b38a166eac450db943e005611974bf@huawei.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>
In-Reply-To: <BD254B32-FAAE-4433-9CF5-2AF19275CA96@employees.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.47.202.43]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="koi8-r"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/PlKDaQFhGIDzmwqTHFPtnBftF00>
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: Tue, 24 Nov 2020 13:59:36 -0000

Hi Ole, Hi Philip,
In general, defining something special for P2P topology (or P2MP) is not a bad architecture decision. Why not?
P2P has really big difference from Multi-Access for address resolution point of view.
Eduard
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ipv6 [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> otroan@employees.org
> Sent: 24 ноября 2020 г. 16:37
> To: Philip Homburg <pch-ipv6-ietf-6@u-1.phicoh.com>
> Cc: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: [v6ops] How do you solve 3GPP issue if neither operator nor
> handset supports PD?
> 
> Philip,
> 
> >>> I found that many implementations just don't react to an NS or send
> >>> any themselves.
> >>
> >> That is correct for any implementation I have written.
> >
> > It seems to me that this is broken. Nowhere in RFC 4861 does it say
> > that if you are on a point-to-point link you are free to drop an incoming NS.
> 
> Neither do any implementation I'm aware do that.
> To be clear. If a link-type has no L2 address / is point to point, then no
> implementation I've touched does ND address resolution.
> It would be happy to respond to a NUD message.
> 
> >> And my point was that this is the desired behaviour in this case.
> >> At least we should explore the consequences of not treating the nodes
> >> on each end as having a directly connected shared subnet (apart from
> >> fe80::/10) and what that does for address assignment/pd.
> >
> > ND is currently link agnostic. Having a different meaning for the L
> > and A bits depending on the link type strikes me as a bad idea.
> 
> And I'm not proposing that.
> 
> The current behaviour of 64share does that (and gets the hack label for that
> reason).
> What I'm saying is that 64share (and what I propose in p2p ethernet) is a lot
> closer to PD than it is to address assignment.
> As soon as you stop thinking that a p2p link has a shared subnet, that's where
> you end up.
> 
> Best regards,
> Ole
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------