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

Nick Hilliard <> Fri, 27 November 2020 10:16 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 829143A1593 for <>; Fri, 27 Nov 2020 02:16:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LI9t-pC1ATuN for <>; Fri, 27 Nov 2020 02:16:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6C2193A1590 for <>; Fri, 27 Nov 2020 02:16:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cupcake.local ( [] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.16.1/8.16.1) with ESMTPSA id 0ARAGfI6095851 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 27 Nov 2020 10:16:42 GMT (envelope-from
X-Authentication-Warning: Host [] (may be forged) claimed to be cupcake.local
Subject: Re: [v6ops] How do you solve 3GPP issue if neither operator nor handset supports PD?
To: Philip Homburg <>
References: <> <> <>
From: Nick Hilliard <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2020 10:16:40 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.16; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 PostboxApp/7.0.39
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-GB
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2020 10:16:52 -0000

Philip Homburg wrote on 27/11/2020 09:58:
>> Lets ask the question differently. Would RS/RA be a good protocol
>> for address assignment?
> RA is widely used for SLAAC. Though SLAAC has a few renumbering issues.
> On the other hand, in the mode DHCPv6 PD is commonly used, it is a bad protocol.

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.