Re: I-D Action: draft-mishra-6man-variable-slaac-01.txt

[Lorenzo Colitti <[e-mail]>]

So are you suggesting defining a "delegated prefix" RA option that would
only be correct to use on point-to-point links?

Technically I think that would work and would be quite simple to implement.
I think someone might have proposed it already, perhaps Alexandre?

I think the downsides are a) we already have something that does this
(DHCPv6 PD), and b) if such an option were ever to be sent on a
non-point-to-point link, it would cause havoc.

On Thu, Nov 5, 2020 at 9:15 AM Ca By <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 2:37 PM Brian E Carpenter <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> On 05-Nov-20 04:45, Ca By wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 12:52 AM Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo=
>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>> >
>> >     On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 4:27 PM Gyan Mishra <[e-mail]
>> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>> >
>> >         It's hard to see why this draft is needed anyway. All that is
>> needed
>> >
>> >             is to remove the "64 bit" statement from the addressing
>> architecture,
>> >             which the WG has consistently failed to reach consensus
>> about.
>> >
>> >
>> >             Gyan>  This topic has come up many times over the years in
>> heated debate and this is another instance of that.  Agreed.  However, what
>> makes this instance different is that we have a major problem to be solved
>> with 4G  &  now as 5G is rolled out, segmentation is of utmost importance.
>> I think in the past we have not had a major problem to be solved and so
>> this change being proposed did not gain traction,  but now as 5G becomes
>> the "norm" as it will compete directly with broadband that customers will
>> start using 5G in SOHO as well as other environments.   This is a major
>> issue that has come up with the ramp up for 5G IPv6 only deployments.
>> >
>> >
>> >     There is already a solution to this: use DHCPv6 PD on 5G networks.
>> It's been supported since 3GPP release 10 several years ago.
>> >
>> >
>> > Has any mobile provider deployed dhcpv6 pd?
>> >
>> > Perhaps the mobile providers have seen what an operational nightmare
>> dhcpv6 pd is and... are like nope.
>>
>> Perhaps that needs to be documented over in v6ops.
>>
>> > I am in favor of the ietf opening their eyes to a better solution.
>> >
>> > Rfc7278 is universally deployed because it is easy.
>>
>> As far as I can tell that is no use for the case of routed network
>> connected to a hotspot, since there is still only one /64 prefix.
>>
>> > Can we do better (more /64s) and easy ?
>>
>> You mean multiple /64s for a single mobile device? Rather than fixing
>> 3GPP to support shorter prefixes, which seems simpler.
>>
>>     Brian
>
>
> Mobile providers have not deployed dhcp pd in the last 10 years.
>
> As a mobile provider, my bet is the next 10 years may be no better.
>
> Yet, rfc 7278 is deployed in many places in mobile
>
>
>>
>>