Re: Extending a /64

Absolutely!

RFC 8929 when published will describe the operation that the phone could use. The proxy ND operation would be routing proxy.

Since RFC 8505 is not (yet) implemented by the major stacks, we could reverse the model and consider that the phone’s WiFi network is the backbone and the 3GPP link is the wireless access.

Happy to help document this if the group is interested.

Regards,

Pascal

> Le 10 nov. 2020 à 03:02, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> a écrit :
> 
> 
> Philip Homburg <pch-ipv6-ietf-6@u-1.phicoh.com> wrote:
>>> A problem described in variable-slaac is:
>>> 
>>> "It should be possible to extend an end-user network that is only
>>> assigned a /64"
>>> 
>>> I believe that is a problem worth looking at.  This problem is not
>>> only restricted to the mobile access case, think connecting a host
>>> with VMs to a link.
> 
>> I don't quite understand the problem statement.
> 
>> We can distinguish inter-site prefix delegation from intra-site prefix
>> delegation.
> 
>> For inter-site prefix delegation we have DHCP PD. This is widely
>> supported on landlines but not on mobile. It seems that it is not
>> supported on mobile because they never bothered to implement it.
> 
> They didn't implement it because for single smartphone "terminals", there was
> no implementations, and IPv6 sharing is too new.  But, a smartphone can
> easily take it's /64, and pass out pieces on the "WiFi" via RA using onlink=false.
> Plus Proxy-ND.
> It's doable, although the mess in the stack that this would cause (see
> Lorenzo's NetDev talk...) makes me embarassed.
> 
> The place where we get into trouble is that LTE is being used for fixed
> wireless, and in that case, it's a real Home Router at the other end, and the
> operators have no idea how to do things, because they didn't really think
> things through.  {I experienced this at my cousin's farm in Alberta}
> 
>> Of course we can just change every last IPv6 implementation in the
>> world to support what the mobile world broke. But does that really make
>> sense?
> 
> No.
> 
> While Barbara makes good point in another thread about how we whack on
> operators a lot: there are an awful lot of really good clueful ones.
> They just don't come to the IETF (or NANOG or RIPE or Apricot), I think.
> 
> --
> ]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [
> ]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        |    IoT architect   [
> ]     mcr@sandelman.ca  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [
> 
> 
> --
> Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
>           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------