IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Philip Homburg <pch-ipv6-ietf-6@u-1.phicoh.com> Tue, 24 November 2020 14:37 UTC

Return-Path: <pch-b9D3CB0F5@u-1.phicoh.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 A44D53A0EA2 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Nov 2020 06:37:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.401
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.401 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.399, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=no 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 k7jr2UZ_M1FZ for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Nov 2020 06:37:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (stereo6-tun.hq.phicoh.net [IPv6:2001:888:1044:10:2a0:c9ff:fe9f:17a9]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6B61A3A0EA5 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Nov 2020 06:37:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (localhost [::ffff:127.0.0.1]) by stereo.hq.phicoh.net with esmtp (TLS version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305) (Smail #157) id m1khZRX-00001XC; Tue, 24 Nov 2020 15:37:19 +0100
Message-Id: <m1khZRX-00001XC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
To: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [v6ops] How do you solve 3GPP issue if neither operator nor handset supports PD?
From: Philip Homburg <pch-ipv6-ietf-6@u-1.phicoh.com>
Sender: pch-b9D3CB0F5@u-1.phicoh.com
References: <CABNhwV2-dH81CY4wSisV8BU-7H9m5a1xYMqTMecRxhNqZe=ApQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr1xV179LZ7Kxtk5mGruJcJ+BpGb2heBBy4ORtRU7bfvqw@mail.gmail.com> <CAMGpriWqnmL0qo0Hm=b+GbzcdCuXz6PM5aq8owE7-=ty5pDFsw@mail.gmail.com> <1DB65027-BEF2-4C0A-ACF4-C979DA7444C2@employees.org> <m1khXWs-00007wC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <47150D97-27D7-4AFD-8418-692D68D09828@employees.org> <m1khXol-0000MEC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <BD254B32-FAAE-4433-9CF5-2AF19275CA96@employees.org> <87b38a166eac450db943e005611974bf@huawei.com>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 24 Nov 2020 13:59:26 +0000 ." <87b38a166eac450db943e005611974bf@huawei.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2020 15:37:13 +0100
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/tRlipUMSHGY09R1Dv8PDtGiziyw>
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: Tue, 24 Nov 2020 14:37:44 -0000

> In
> general, defining something special for P2P topology (or P2MP) is
> not a bad architecture decision. Why not? P2P has really big
> difference from Multi-Access for address resolution point of view.

So we get something like
- If the downstream network does homenet, delegate prefixes using homenet.
- If the downstream network is p2p (for example a VPN client), do RA or DHCP PD
- If the downstream network is configured as p2p ethernet then do RA or
  DHCP PD
- If the downstream network is other ethernet do DHCP PD.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email