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

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Fri, 27 November 2020 00:16 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
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 46B9B3A097A for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Nov 2020 16:16:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 OSfHDgepKGtb for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Nov 2020 16:16:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E02A43A09E1 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Nov 2020 16:16:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB8C3389F0; Thu, 26 Nov 2020 19:17:28 -0500 (EST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id kxR785sbVO7u; Thu, 26 Nov 2020 19:17:27 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0FEE389EA; Thu, 26 Nov 2020 19:17:27 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45227375; Thu, 26 Nov 2020 19:16:00 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Philip Homburg <pch-ipv6-ietf-7@u-1.phicoh.com>, ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [v6ops] How do you solve 3GPP issue if neither operator nor handset supports PD?
In-Reply-To: <m1kiLjK-0000EaC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
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> <m1khZRX-00001XC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <27311.1606325147@localhost> <m1kiFrc-0000ETC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <28088.1606410874@localhost> <m1kiLjK-0000EaC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2020 19:16:00 -0500
Message-ID: <1581.1606436160@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/thfFQzuC1K5VQMhMAGdcP1uGpFg>
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: Fri, 27 Nov 2020 00:16:05 -0000

Philip Homburg <pch-ipv6-ietf-7@u-1.phicoh.com> wrote:
    > DHCPv6 has a very complex model. There can be multiple relays and multiple
    > DHCP servers. So a downstream router first has to collect offers and then
    > select one.

None of that matters over PPP.
It's a trivial request/response protocol in that case.
No relays required if all the data comes from radius data as is often the
case for BMS (DSL, PPPoE).

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide