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

otroan@employees.org Tue, 24 November 2020 13:37 UTC

Return-Path: <otroan@employees.org>
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 615B53A0DA4 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Nov 2020 05:37:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 15XlYQ2KmHJ8 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Nov 2020 05:37:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from clarinet.employees.org (clarinet.employees.org [198.137.202.74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4D82E3A0DA1 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Nov 2020 05:37:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from astfgl.hanazo.no (201.51-175-101.customer.lyse.net [51.175.101.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by clarinet.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B07BC4E11AF8; Tue, 24 Nov 2020 13:37:18 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by astfgl.hanazo.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id D67DB45DFDF5; Tue, 24 Nov 2020 14:37:16 +0100 (CET)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.20.0.2.21\))
Subject: Re: [v6ops] How do you solve 3GPP issue if neither operator nor handset supports PD?
From: otroan@employees.org
In-Reply-To: <m1khXol-0000MEC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2020 14:37:16 +0100
Cc: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <BD254B32-FAAE-4433-9CF5-2AF19275CA96@employees.org>
References: <CABNhwV2-dH81CY4wSisV8BU-7H9m5a1xYMqTMecRxhNqZe=ApQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr1xV179LZ7Kxtk5mGruJcJ+BpGb2heBBy4ORtRU7bfvqw@mail.gmail.com> <CAMGpriWqnmL0qo0Hm=b+GbzcdCuXz6PM5aq8owE7-=ty5pDFsw@mail.gmail.com> <1DB65027-BEF2-4C0A-ACF4-C979DA7444C2@employees.org> <m1khXWs-00007wC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <47150D97-27D7-4AFD-8418-692D68D09828@employees.org> <m1khXol-0000MEC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
To: Philip Homburg <pch-ipv6-ietf-6@u-1.phicoh.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.20.0.2.21)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/fx5dWBEgc_tuTe7Da4exbKwk6qo>
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, 24 Nov 2020 13:37:25 -0000

Philip,

>>> I found that many implementations just don't react
>>> to an NS or send any themselves.
>> 
>> That is correct for any implementation I have written.
> 
> It seems to me that this is broken. Nowhere in RFC 4861 does it say that if
> you are on a point-to-point link you are free to drop an incoming NS.

Neither do any implementation I'm aware do that.
To be clear. If a link-type has no L2 address / is point to point, then no implementation I've touched does ND address resolution.
It would be happy to respond to a NUD message.

>> And my point was that this is the desired behaviour in this case.
>> At least we should explore the consequences of not treating the
>> nodes on each end as having a directly connected shared subnet
>> (apart from fe80::/10) and what that does for address assignment/pd.
> 
> ND is currently link agnostic. Having a different meaning for the L and A 
> bits depending on the link type strikes me as a bad idea.

And I'm not proposing that.

The current behaviour of 64share does that (and gets the hack label for that reason).
What I'm saying is that 64share (and what I propose in p2p ethernet) is a lot closer to PD than it is to address assignment.
As soon as you stop thinking that a p2p link has a shared subnet, that's where you end up.

Best regards,
Ole