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

[Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

Le 08/11/2020 à 23:06, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ a écrit :
[...]
> Also, Alex insisted that chipset vendors don't support it. I don't
> think this is the case, I recall having used DHCPv6-PD with an LTE
> router long time ago.

I asked it at that time, I will ask it again the same question of 
whether this was on a smartphone or on a CPE, with which operator, which 
LTE modem, was the Server in the cellular network, and other details.

(if my assumptions about your trial is correct) The fact that a CPE 
router has a LTE interface and that the Server is outside the network 
operator it does not mean DHCPv6-PD works on smartphones.

> I'm sure we have in the list folks from Apple, Broadcom, Qualcomm,
> maybe ARM, or somebody in the list can reach them, to ensure if this
> is a chipset problem, which I don't think is the case.

It is the case.

> It looks to me it is more a problem of the rest of the mobile network
> equipment, just not implementing it by default.

No, it is a problem on the modem in the smartphone, not in the network.

Anyways, we will not solve it here.

One has to admit that in some environments some things are simply not 
there and wont come.

Alex

> 
> 
> El 8/11/20 22:44, "ipv6 en nombre de Brian E Carpenter"
> <[e-mail] en nombre de [e-mail]>
> escribió:
> 
> On 09-Nov-20 09:14, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
>> This is wrong. As one of the authors of that document, I can ensure
>> that it covers both aspects, size and persistence and it also
>> covers mobile. See:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 4.2.4. Considerations for Cellular Operators
>> 
>> There is a clear exception to the rule described above when
>> assigning prefixes in a cellular network. In this case, a /64 will
>> need to be provided for each PDP context for cellular phones,
>> whereas for LTE modems/routers, i.e. in the case of broadband by
>> means of cellular access, it will still be necessary to choose a
>> /48 or /56 in accordance with the aforementioned considerations.
>> 
> 
> Can you be more explicit? Are you saying that this problem is in fact
> solved for 5G modems? If so, and 4G is soon to be legacy, why are we
> even having this discussion?
> 
> Regards Brian
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [e-mail] Administrative
> Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 
> ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you
> ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6
> Company
> 
> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged
> or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive
> use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty
> authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents
> of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is
> strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you
> are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying,
> distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if
> partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be
> considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original
> sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [e-mail] Administrative
> Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>