IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: “DHCPv6, SLAAC, Static Day X - 17 year interoperability issue” 2nd issue

Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> Tue, 10 November 2020 09:54 UTC

Return-Path: <swmike@swm.pp.se>
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 351893A0D73 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Nov 2020 01:54:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=swm.pp.se
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 hbSq9AbTuz-j for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Nov 2020 01:54:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (swm.pp.se [212.247.200.143]) (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 BAE7B3A0D78 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Nov 2020 01:54:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id 8A831B1; Tue, 10 Nov 2020 10:54:19 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=swm.pp.se; s=mail; t=1605002059; bh=p3CFMhMYD5wOD9H0tnw7UnJnJ59dTfda9fnIJDdQb4A=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=qljF5VLpFXOf7tZMEqZndwS1uV3N9qhne0cJB5vi7+uWGRaPLzwp9kUgkuct0u+8m rRi3BOsvLEIrrX2zr+ZHF626AmZ9e7K4A6R5/8Eg2jbufEdGshkCbkEjU2Wh3bs7kk doJqh+j+gk70Rm5byyAJPq7YSAm//c3A/vGJ/o9s=
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85C82B0; Tue, 10 Nov 2020 10:54:19 +0100 (CET)
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2020 10:54:19 +0100
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
To: Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com>
cc: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: “DHCPv6, SLAAC, Static Day X - 17 year interoperability issue” 2nd issue
In-Reply-To: <CAD6AjGTcy3eo=4P52fOjCKRLDveVMUJcD7Y_u9JzJtpq3RAj0Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.2011101040370.15604@uplift.swm.pp.se>
References: <3A94E3B6-EA5A-453A-8CB1-C11BBDF88B53@gmail.com> <CAD6AjGTcy3eo=4P52fOjCKRLDveVMUJcD7Y_u9JzJtpq3RAj0Q@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07)
Organization: People's Front Against WWW
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"; charset="US-ASCII"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/TQtBbr5xapxPhQzOTKRYrA1mU8w>
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 09:54:24 -0000

On Mon, 9 Nov 2020, Ca By wrote:

> 3gpp operators only provide /64 because that is all that the standards
> allow for without dhcpv6. No other reason, please avoid creating narratives
> to explain what is clearly documented in the standards.

... and why is that? 3GPP R11 standardised DHCPv6-PD with prefix-exclude 
back in 2011. Why are where in 2020 with no support for this 15 year old 
protocol that seems to work just fine for similar architectures (I see 
BNG-PPPoE-RG as very similar to PDNGW-GTP-UE).

Your proposal seems to me to be that instead of mobile operators telling 
their vendors to implement DHCPv6-PD in mobile core nodes, you now want to 
have changes done to everything else from the UE and behind it. What's 
that, 5-10 magnitudes more devices? With 1-3 magnitudes more vendors?

You mentioned the word "inertia". What about the inertia in the end-user 
space, with devices you don't even control?

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email