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

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo=[e-mail]> wrote:
    >> You can't run a flexible address assignment protocol without a
    >> provisioning database. ND is typically implemented in o/s kernels, so
    >> interfacing this with user-mode radius is architecturally troublesome.
    >>
    >> As a separate issue, adding this level of complexity also goes against
    >> many of the design principals that ND was intended to fulfil.  It could
    >> be argued that these principals are already being infringed on, but a PD
    >> extension would take this several steps further.
    >>

    > I don't think that's the case. I'm sure there are residential broadband
    > deployments that use Framed-Ipv6-Prefix radius attribute to assign the
    > directly-connected IPv6 prefix to the customer. I once designed a network
    > like that many years ago, and the BNGs at that time already supported it.

Exactly.  It's just stupid to do it any other way.

Even if you really want dynamically assigned prefixes from a pool (with
forced nightly renumbering even), it's still smarter to do that in the radius
server rather than in the DHCPv6-PD server.   That's because you need the
audit logs, and you want the minute to minute persistant across power cycles of stuff.

If we could do *all* IPv6 assignment via PD (whether DHCPv6-PD, or some new
way), and never number the PPP link there are many gains to be had.

--
Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide