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

otroan@employees.org Fri, 27 November 2020 13:14 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 80A113A0B87 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Nov 2020 05:14:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 1p3I-MRVjkuJ for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Nov 2020 05:14:04 -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 3FEAA3A0B80 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Nov 2020 05:14:04 -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 828B84E11BF7; Fri, 27 Nov 2020 13:14:03 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by astfgl.hanazo.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4440463545F; Fri, 27 Nov 2020 14:14:01 +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: <m1kidK6-00001eC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2020 14:14:01 +0100
Cc: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <965999C8-31C2-415C-9AB7-0B8129918BB9@employees.org>
References: <m1kiLjK-0000EaC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <7BB64BE0-6A62-4711-91E4-1393EDC0809E@employees.org> <m1kiaW6-0000IFC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <5EB013E0-CC25-42AB-B5EF-3DBC82782B44@employees.org> <m1kidK6-00001eC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
To: Philip Homburg <pch-ipv6-ietf-7@u-1.phicoh.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.20.0.2.21)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/k6R5q2_tH6hlDn5GcRuNVDM2KVo>
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 13:14:06 -0000

> Ephemeral addressing is a fact of life. Yes we can pretend that the whole 
> world can use static addresses, but that is just living in a fantasy world.
> 
> Ephemeral addressing is currently deployed. For common cases software has
> checks that something has changed and reacts. Of course, this fails for 
> uncommon cases.

You keep saying that.

Can you please write a draft explaining how it is supposed to work?
And if it is true as you say that it is currently implemented and deployed, what implementations support that, how do the topologies look like etc?
I work for a reasonably large vendor I can guarantee you that we have not implemented support for ephemeral addressing. ;-)

Cheers,
Ole