IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> Fri, 27 November 2020 10:19 UTC

Return-Path: <lorenzo@google.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 2D9A23A1596 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Nov 2020 02:19:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -17.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, ENV_AND_HDR_SPF_MATCH=-0.5, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com
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 yVPNnf5FY45h for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Nov 2020 02:19:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yb1-xb34.google.com (mail-yb1-xb34.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::b34]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6B8BA3A1599 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Nov 2020 02:19:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-yb1-xb34.google.com with SMTP id o71so4104525ybc.2 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Nov 2020 02:19:55 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Hh1Q6M/cI2C8WbhJWP/WH/irLPFiXMCFmPenVSFnXSg=; b=Es/HSHfJV3lYzJnDUo9KnAY03Rq0Vmla1vXg59rYJNFJd7gC+rrnDnOWO+On36cYKz FPIznr9jnSJw3t8ha/32lmCx/kOF/cFKT6yrdTkaloLq1SzI2oONpxyoD7NeLjGDTwDU dpfIDPDXkuXzhr8jkdrbBInJu3pFKNuoG4E2BeQE6bobmPG+7ZlQPRo5fR2u9Bk6ahMP igAr6J4w9bSsacEXWTNBStZv98P/VRjDz25sc5VrJVUaXzlg822wi6UNnuTH44DfS5KL bpKFuteDPhmgZnZx9qKuqtBHqgQEJgSgetb9b+aYa8l3bgUTrlzKTHfGoZXe6Q8wEigN SYTQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Hh1Q6M/cI2C8WbhJWP/WH/irLPFiXMCFmPenVSFnXSg=; b=NvCMDabql/d+xieqPg1kWVENLLdVreAeznPCFiuUXGvqo1yxDcOT0SHQoEJINr6YXs AJbz/Psq+2DBa/CTXpgIzszbQPQ+lNaEWtZdkdtRUR6D1kNWp5JdlwAh1lg4Xf/WN5ow FqAzVp2UKAWo61ZHk1rgA0BPe/xUPlbJ7pe0pPUWX+QRiqhKdvTFIe0WbU1Wbp8WHHyi 29PtkzsZFRl2eT9AcL7XGgVF+ef8/fqFqH2K8xDQh0++ISlG/AwGknKkcbItDXRd9VXZ Hau2LBShQD8ARfi6s/w1lyoSGTFSbq4ypIMxD/LrO/asoxiE2RJ6BjPAasPzz7cnbLE1 AivA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5306fsnRbEYrlUIHQYavyWrkZIRuoR/qbuL0a320YXEEISw5uwyU wqPFiX7Hx1GovdH392MzKQuYn5J7t3rAjs3Ag/szy6GHMqxNzw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJy5BS0dBossA68yyTLiaTqnTdpoP1MdwVz88AIB/hFSuomsDOlF5EVDzN5cX+IieL+YB6b2m6Y6c60mWblEspo=
X-Received: by 2002:a25:bc91:: with SMTP id e17mr8898326ybk.332.1606472394299; Fri, 27 Nov 2020 02:19:54 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <m1kiLjK-0000EaC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <7BB64BE0-6A62-4711-91E4-1393EDC0809E@employees.org> <m1kiaW6-0000IFC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <074a3f13-732a-a495-9a6f-5d2c2e1d7961@foobar.org>
In-Reply-To: <074a3f13-732a-a495-9a6f-5d2c2e1d7961@foobar.org>
From: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2020 19:19:42 +0900
Message-ID: <CAKD1Yr01KFF47DgCx69E487_E_ZoNCMqoK-K9N-4uYXcnPDOvQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] How do you solve 3GPP issue if neither operator nor handset supports PD?
To: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
Cc: Philip Homburg <pch-ipv6-ietf-7@u-1.phicoh.com>, IETF IPv6 Mailing List <ipv6@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000067e50c05b51400d5"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/WcSq1jJJiCX6x9gDayc6PfJkNfg>
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: Fri, 27 Nov 2020 10:19:57 -0000

On Fri, Nov 27, 2020 at 7:17 PM Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> wrote:

> You can't run a flexible address assignment protocol without a
> provisioning database. ND is typically implemented in o/s kernels, so
> interfacing this with user-mode radius is architecturally troublesome.
>
> As a separate issue, adding this level of complexity also goes against
> many of the design principals that ND was intended to fulfil.  It could
> be argued that these principals are already being infringed on, but a PD
> extension would take this several steps further.
>

I don't think that's the case. I'm sure there are residential broadband
deployments that use Framed-Ipv6-Prefix radius attribute to assign the
directly-connected IPv6 prefix to the customer. I once designed a network
like that many years ago, and the BNGs at that time already supported it.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email