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

"Templin (US), Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> Wed, 25 November 2020 17:10 UTC

Return-Path: <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.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 C52AD3A1AC2 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Nov 2020 09:10:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 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_H2=-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 (2048-bit key) header.d=boeing.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 38_msslb8n_9 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Nov 2020 09:10:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from clt-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net (clt-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net [130.76.144.162]) (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 98DCE3A1ABB for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Nov 2020 09:10:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by clt-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net (8.15.2/8.15.2/DOWNSTREAM_MBSOUT) with SMTP id 0APHAaAw026062; Wed, 25 Nov 2020 12:10:38 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=boeing.com; s=boeing-s1912; t=1606324238; bh=x3UXNADC2c1Io2EIWOgFSEcis4FakH4pFDqMLXUXRAw=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=BJipQzg6djvD0PWeRDeu0QokA67SGuBCYkA8NG8AtuegjMOXUb9Mn4hVFOrn913/T 13d14Z1vHbkSlf+/j3CiOu//YsNWnKLImWZuC52Mif4HtkSbtkSQOLmpCEHjiSyj92 N+zIkNlPKr1PODPdb3cY6c9LU8Q9vyHykY98HAsUpEyCwMUkNaWFJ1wKQvdADvIhF/ fIc7aTgyTgacnDo+bzmPbsiXvlvEOGMa0JxUFFhK4JbBACcuIqABg+EMsBouyFBQWn aia6VPnEC1bqIKsaoOmiYMO0QBw+qfI34I2/I+WbbkCQbQvzvjryh/HStgMAaekAnW stHbH3GfUoHjw==
Received: from XCH16-07-10.nos.boeing.com (xch16-07-10.nos.boeing.com [144.115.66.112]) by clt-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net (8.15.2/8.15.2/8.15.2/UPSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTPS id 0APHAYEf025947 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 25 Nov 2020 12:10:34 -0500
Received: from XCH16-07-10.nos.boeing.com (144.115.66.112) by XCH16-07-10.nos.boeing.com (144.115.66.112) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384) id 15.1.2044.4; Wed, 25 Nov 2020 09:10:32 -0800
Received: from XCH16-07-10.nos.boeing.com ([fe80::1522:f068:5766:53b5]) by XCH16-07-10.nos.boeing.com ([fe80::1522:f068:5766:53b5%2]) with mapi id 15.01.2044.004; Wed, 25 Nov 2020 09:10:32 -0800
From: "Templin (US), Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
To: tom petch <ietfc@btconnect.com>, David Allan I <david.i.allan@ericsson.com>, Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>, "ipv6@ietf.org" <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: [v6ops] How do you solve 3GPP issue if neither operator nor handset supports PD?
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] How do you solve 3GPP issue if neither operator nor handset supports PD?
Thread-Index: AdbCrBJZQpt+0a0wT/6DvMi5tarEVwABLiWgACFgsUAABXgFuwAATyKA
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2020 17:10:32 +0000
Message-ID: <0bdbfa4b1cfb488e9b40fbbcbf9b7ae6@boeing.com>
References: <d839b04e8c6840edaf042478964ce793@boeing.com> <BY5PR15MB37150A20A6CD1144A22A3F9AD0FB0@BY5PR15MB3715.namprd15.prod.outlook.com>, <3e8c14c4c3da4909b4642a84315299bb@boeing.com> <AM7PR07MB62482DCE11A0C839B648693FA0FA0@AM7PR07MB6248.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <AM7PR07MB62482DCE11A0C839B648693FA0FA0@AM7PR07MB6248.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [137.137.12.6]
x-tm-snts-smtp: FEE1859C241553563360E9402603AC81FA8D499CFC6565EA95EFC8DFA96420172000:8
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/mXVfMbQFYP55AU2RW5z6ltFkl4M>
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: Wed, 25 Nov 2020 17:10:46 -0000


> -----Original Message-----
> From: tom petch [mailto:ietfc@btconnect.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2020 9:03 AM
> To: Templin (US), Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>om>; David Allan I <david.i.allan@ericsson.com>om>; Alexandre Petrescu
> <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>om>; ipv6@ietf.org
> Subject:  Re: [v6ops] How do you solve 3GPP issue if neither operator nor handset supports PD?
> 
> From: ipv6 <ipv6-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Templin (US), Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
> Sent: 25 November 2020 14:23
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: David Allan I [mailto:david.i.allan@ericsson.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2020 2:29 PM
> 
> > FWIW for a 5G UE, the SMF assigns the interface ID used for LLA etc. as part of the PDU session setup.  See TS24.501 clause 9.11.4.10.
> 
> Wouldn't it be better if the interface ID contained a useful piece of information such
> as a delegated prefix, instead of just a bag of bits?
> 
> <tp>
> No!
> An identifier should identify, be unique within its namespace, be easy to use in whatever manner it gets used.
> 
> Load it up with 'useful' semantics and it will become defective as some of the semantics change or aren't present in some cases.
> 
> Brian addressed this back in June.

Brian also cited this construction format in RFC7421 (cited as [AER-TRANS]).

Fred

> Tom Petch
> 
> Fred
> 
> > Cheers
> > D
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ipv6 <ipv6-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Templin (US), Fred L
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2020 1:52 PM
> > To: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>om>; ipv6@ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: [v6ops] How do you solve 3GPP issue if neither operator nor handset supports PD?
> >
> > Alex, see below:
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: ipv6 [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alexandre
> > > Petrescu
> > > Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2020 1:33 PM
> > > To: ipv6@ietf.org
> > > Subject: Re: [v6ops] How do you solve 3GPP issue if neither operator nor handset supports PD?
> > >
> > >
> > > Le 24/11/2020 à 17:44, Templin (US), Fred L a écrit :
> > > > Getting what I said earlier onto this thread, I think we should be
> > > > discussing the LLA-based PD scheme specified in:
> > > >
> > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-templin-6man-lla-type/
> > > >
> > > > What is unique and compelling about this scheme is that it brings
> > > > down two birds with one stone; in a single RS/RA exchange, the
> > > > mobile node receives both 1) an IPv6 PD, and 2) an LLA that is guaranteed to be unique on the link without having to apply DAD.
> > >
> > > YEs for 1), but for 2) one would also consider the IPv6CP part of ppp
> > > and the PDP protocols.  These two protocols are also involved in the
> > > negotiation of an IID, LLA or even a GUA some times, on that link.
> >
> > I assume this exchange happens even before the first IPv6 ND message exchange over the link? If so, then if the PDP protocols
> > convey an OMNI LLA even before any IPv6 ND message exchange then the "PD" operation will already be complete since the OMNI
> > LLA already contains the delegated prefix. Would that be a useful simplification?
> >
> > Thanks - Fred
> >
> > > Delegating a prefix is typically associated by an operation of
> > > insertion of an entry in a routing table.  That entry should have a
> > > next hop address.  That address could be an LL address or a GUA.
> > > These are negotiated by these IPv6CP or PDP protocols.
> > >
> > > If it is too complicated to make IPv6-PD option to use the addresses
> > > created by IPv6CP or by PDP as nexthop, then one could delegate a
> > > prefix without pointing to a nexthop, but using that old p2p trick.
> > >
> > > Also, the suggestion of this draft of using another LL address comes
> > > down to associating several LL addresses to an interface; because the
> > > LL address made by PDP or IPv6CP is always there.  If such a 2nd LL
> > > address is associated to an interface, but is not used in the Gateway
> > > as a nexthop field, then one wonders why bothering forming it at all.
> > > An interface must always have one LL address, and that is given by
> > > IPv6CP or PDP, I think.
> > >
> > > I am not saying it is not a good idea, though.
> > >
> > > Alex
> > >
> > > >
> > > > The idea for this LLA-based PD scheme is as follows:
> > > >
> > > > 1) The requesting router creates a temporary LLA using RFC4941(bis)
> > > > and sets a prefix length indication inside the LLA itself. The RR
> > > > then uses the LLA as the IPv6 source address of an RS message to send to the delegating router.
> > > >
> > > > 2) When the delegating router receives the RS, it sees that the IPv6
> > > > source is an RFC4941(bis) address with a non-zero prefix length
> > > > indication. The DR then coordinates with the DHCPv6 server to request a PD of the length indicated by the RR.
> > > >
> > > > 3) When the DR receives the PD from the DHCPv6 server, it creates an
> > > > OMNI LLA by embedding the delegated prefix in the IID of fe80::/64, e.g., as fe80::2001:db8:1:2.
> > > > The DR then sets a prefix length indication in the OMNI LLA, and
> > > > sets the LLA as the destination address of an RA message to send back to the RR.
> > > >
> > > > 4) When the RR receives the RA message, it sees that the destination
> > > > is an OMNI LLA with a non-zero prefix length. The RR then uses the
> > > > embedded prefix within the OMNI LLA as its delegated prefix, and
> > > > regards the Router Lifetime as the time at which the delegated prefix needs to be renewed.
> > > >
> > > > Questions?
> > > >
> > > > Fred
> > > >
> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative
> > > > Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >
> > >
> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> > > ipv6@ietf.org
> > > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> > ipv6@ietf.org
> > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> =