RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: DHCPv6-PD is fine

["Templin (US), Fred L" <[e-mail]>]

Tony,

>We should clarify that while OMNI may include DHCPv6 PD, that is for general use.
>Civil Aviation is using static MNP assignment and is only interested in MNP confirmation
>using the LLA convention.

Yes, that is a very good point and I tried to highlight that in my initial message
when I said: “In OMNI in particular, we have two modes of prefix registration
for mobiles:  1) Static configuration, 2) DHCPv6-PD”. What you are saying above
fits with option 1) Static configuration, and for Civil Aviation where the aircraft
has a uniquely-assigned MNP you are right that this will be the method used.
However, for non-aircraft users that do not have a pre-assigned MNP option
2) DHCPv6-PD may be the only option.

So, you are correct in what you are saying, yes – but I believe a complete
solution needs to support both options.

Fred


From: ipv6 [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of tony.whyman
Sent: Monday, November 09, 2020 11:17 AM
To: Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: DHCPv6-PD is fine

Fred,

We should clarify that while OMNI may include DHCPv6 PD, that is for general use. Civil Aviation is using static MNP assignment and is only interested in MNP confirmation using the LLA convention.

Tony



Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.


-------- Original message --------
From: Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: 09/11/2020 16:41 (GMT+00:00)
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: DHCPv6-PD is fine



Le 09/11/2020 à 17:32, Templin (US), Fred L a écrit :
> DHCPv6-PD is fine - especially for mobiles - so, please stop spreading FUD.
> In OMNI in particular, we have two modes of prefix registration for mobiles:
> 1) Static configuration, 2) DHCPv6-PD - with both methods being driven by
> RS/RA. We have used both methods for many years for prefixes lengths
> in the /56 to /64 range, and I see no reason to get dragged into arguments
> about longer lengths which is a completely different discussion.

Fred, maybe people in the aviation can deploy their own ground networks
to accomodate planes with OMNI interfaces.  At that point it is easy to
say DHCPv6-PD is fine.

But in other places, automobiles for example, one must use the existing
cellular networks.  DHCPv6-PD is not fine there.  It's not FUD.

This discussion has become so complicated that it seems to me impossibly
complex to come up with something that satisfies even a minority.

OMNI and DHCPv6-PD, Ethernet P2P, Variable SLAAC, 464XLAT, Mobile IPv6
with NEMO extensions, and others - are each a potential solution to some
environment.

Alex

>
> Fred
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------