Re: 64share v2

Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> Tue, 10 November 2020 15:47 UTC

Return-Path: <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.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 D7B9A3A07D7 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Nov 2020 07:47:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.67
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.67 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD=1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 tfhw1UhcH_Ox for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Nov 2020 07:47:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sainfoin-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr (sainfoin-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr [132.167.192.228]) (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 3C9F53A0D6C for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Nov 2020 07:47:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by sainfoin-sys.extra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id 0AAFlGDq046425 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Nov 2020 16:47:16 +0100
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id A8AA72054DF for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Nov 2020 16:47:16 +0100 (CET)
Received: from muguet1-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr (muguet1-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.12]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DDF2203F7F for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Nov 2020 16:47:16 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [10.11.242.43] ([10.11.242.43]) by muguet1-sys.intra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id 0AAFlGNq018324 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Nov 2020 16:47:16 +0100
Subject: Re: 64share v2
To: ipv6@ietf.org
References: <CAD6AjGR-NE_sJ_jp7nAT6OvNkcdE9qoWuGEiiVW7r9YtsQvbbw@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr0G8PjzE+pULte_AaOi=RHMLyto-YUQerGjQ=iOYnz+iA@mail.gmail.com> <0986B112-2159-4045-87F9-876B58F1D896@employees.org> <CAKD1Yr0h9=7p+n=qnH1o1EHqtPrsaYebgvHciOJpP3=iXgNgKQ@mail.gmail.com> <0C739112-D8EA-42C3-BEFD-88C014D5BCD0@employees.org> <CAKD1Yr3Xr2t8yN40kmq6S+gSMPMDkm6cVXaVM+doW-xPo_BTrQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ae92ba68-27d7-aadc-98ce-4435a0a0fb4f@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2020 16:47:16 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.4.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAKD1Yr3Xr2t8yN40kmq6S+gSMPMDkm6cVXaVM+doW-xPo_BTrQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: fr
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/TB262KWq4p7Siluc5rPLQxaOz7E>
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, 10 Nov 2020 15:47:40 -0000



Le 10/11/2020 à 11:58, Lorenzo Colitti a écrit :
> On Tue, 10 Nov 2020, 19:32 , <otroan@employees.org 
> <mailto:otroan@employees.org>> wrote:
> 
>      > 3GPP networks do have this property. The PIO lifetime in the RA
>     is set to infinite and the actual lifetime is the link lifetime. By
>     and large that seems to work in practice :-)
> 
>     It works fine for the directly connected node.
>     Now please put a large network behind this link and tell me how that
>     goes...
> 
> 
> What problems do you see with this that aren't already addressed by 
> existing RFC7278 implementations?

Well, I think the 64share-v2, as currently formulated, does allude to 
new needed mechanisms when it says:
   "/56 is received from the 3GPP network, it will assign a /64 to the
    wireless LAN interface, another /64 is to be used for a CLAT [RFC
    6877], and the remainder of addresses will create a pool of prefixes
    that are assigned to downstream DHCPv6 PD clients."
These things are not done in current 64share implementations.  There are 
no DHCPv6-PD servers in the smartphones, and there is no standard way to 
form /64s automatically out of a /56.  There are many non-interoperable 
implementations to realize that derivation.

Additionally, a smartphone receiving an RA with a /64, as in current 
64share deployments, will correctly configure an address, but it would 
illegitimately do so if it received a /56 as per 64share-v2, because the 
IID len is 64 currently.

It might be that it might be easier to have a SLAAC with an IID len 72
to match the plen /56 of 64share-v2, rather than a prefix exclude option
in a SLAAC-DHCP combination.

Alex

> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>