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

Philip Homburg <> Fri, 27 November 2020 10:13 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 149D73A1591 for <>; Fri, 27 Nov 2020 02:13:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.499
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.399, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Pc_i77p-VtFE for <>; Fri, 27 Nov 2020 02:13:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:888:1044:10:2a0:c9ff:fe9f:17a9]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 97AAE3A1593 for <>; Fri, 27 Nov 2020 02:13:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (localhost [::ffff:]) by with esmtp (TLS version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305) (Smail #157) id m1kiakS-0000KMC; Fri, 27 Nov 2020 11:13:04 +0100
Message-Id: <>
Cc: Michael Richardson <>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] How do you solve 3GPP issue if neither operator nor handset supports PD?
From: Philip Homburg <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <27311.1606325147@localhost> <> <28088.1606410874@localhost> <> <1581.1606436160@localhost>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 26 Nov 2020 19:16:00 -0500 ." <1581.1606436160@localhost>
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2020 11:13:03 +0100
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2020 10:13:08 -0000

>None of that matters over PPP.
>It's a trivial request/response protocol in that case.
>No relays required if all the data comes from radius data as is often the
>case for BMS (DSL, PPPoE).

DHCP is far from trivial. There are all kinds of issues. Having to repopulate
FIB entries in a magic ways after a reboot of a router because the
downstream router believes it still has a valid lease.

Alternativly, we can leave it to the client to deal with that. Requiring the
client to have a reliable link state detector. Which can fail because people
relay packets in weird ways.

Another example is when user swaps CPEs and the new CPE doesn't get a lease
because the lease is still assigned to the old CPE.

Client side, there is a lot of protocol that is specified that is hardly used.