Re: [mif] Comments on draft-mouton-mif-dhcpv6-drlo-00

<teemu.savolainen@nokia.com> Tue, 13 September 2011 21:29 UTC

Return-Path: <teemu.savolainen@nokia.com>
X-Original-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F53B11E80CA for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Sep 2011 14:29:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.683
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.683 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.085, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kuQXHFQKKx8n for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Sep 2011 14:29:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mgw-sa01.nokia.com (smtp.nokia.com [147.243.1.47]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B34A11E80B8 for <mif@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Sep 2011 14:29:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vaebh106.NOE.Nokia.com (vaebh106.europe.nokia.com [10.160.244.32]) by mgw-sa01.nokia.com (Switch-3.4.4/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id p8DLVBOK015464; Wed, 14 Sep 2011 00:31:12 +0300
Received: from smtp.mgd.nokia.com ([65.54.30.7]) by vaebh106.NOE.Nokia.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 14 Sep 2011 00:31:07 +0300
Received: from 008-AM1MMR1-006.mgdnok.nokia.com (65.54.30.61) by NOK-AM1MHUB-03.mgdnok.nokia.com (65.54.30.7) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.255.0; Tue, 13 Sep 2011 23:31:06 +0200
Received: from 008-AM1MPN1-032.mgdnok.nokia.com ([169.254.2.143]) by 008-AM1MMR1-006.mgdnok.nokia.com ([65.54.30.61]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.007; Tue, 13 Sep 2011 23:31:04 +0200
From: <teemu.savolainen@nokia.com>
To: <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>, <mif@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [mif] Comments on draft-mouton-mif-dhcpv6-drlo-00
Thread-Index: AQHMclXvmeatSbe770ilB6P1NUlbCpVL1DV4
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 21:31:03 +0000
Message-ID: <916CE6CF87173740BC8A2CE4430969620257327E@008-AM1MPN1-032.mgdnok.nokia.com>
References: <3CF88B99A9ED504197498BC6F6F04B81040FBDA9@XMB-BGL-41E.cisco.com> <4E6E7A72.9030208@gmail.com> <4E6EAFC2.5060906@gmail.com> <4E6EDEA8.3080108@gmail.com> <CFDF82EE-052B-4A61-AE1B-152337822B6E@nominum.com> <4E6F825C.3080303@gmail.com> <3D0B3661-8A8F-4BB2-A8EF-25007BEAF66C@nominum.com> <4E6F923F.7090304@gmail.com> <7061CEB8-8084-41D5-B31E-9F8E3B6C7091@nominum.com> <4E6F9B91.7010503@gmail.com> <B987CA14-569C-428C-8D8A-C97A0E42EF48@nominum.com> <4E6FA64E.7020801@gmail.com> <82337D11-0A39-4A10-AA0E-1E81B09DBA4F@nominum.com> <4E6FACF6.5000007@viagenie.ca>, <4E6FC0AE.5000108@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4E6FC0AE.5000108@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: fi-FI
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_916CE6CF87173740BC8A2CE4430969620257327E008AM1MPN1032mg_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 Sep 2011 21:31:07.0491 (UTC) FILETIME=[72C40B30:01CC725C]
X-Nokia-AV: Clean
Subject: Re: [mif] Comments on draft-mouton-mif-dhcpv6-drlo-00
X-BeenThere: mif@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multiple Interface Discussion List <mif.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mif>, <mailto:mif-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mif>
List-Post: <mailto:mif@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mif-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif>, <mailto:mif-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 21:29:08 -0000

Could you please be more specific what is this 3G+? I mean use of DHCPv4 for address config is extremely rare on real 3GPP accesses and stateful DHCPv6 for address config is not on any 3GPP spec version (save PD) at least..

Sent from my Windows Phone
________________________________
From: ext Alexandru Petrescu
Sent: 13.9.2011 23:44
To: mif@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [mif] Comments on draft-mouton-mif-dhcpv6-drlo-00

Le 13/09/2011 21:20, Simon Perreault a écrit :
> Ted Lemon wrote, on 09/13/2011 03:15 PM:
>> Also, I'm a bit confused by the idea of an interface route with no
>> router address in IPv6.   I will admit to being something of a tyro
>> when it comes to these things, but I don't understand how that
>> would work.   Does the client simply multicast every packet?   Is
>> there an RFC or draft that documents how this works?
>
> I'm guessing that's a point-to-point interface. So you don't need the
> next hop's L2 address. You just send it down the tube and it gets at
> the other end. The classic example is PPP.

YEs, it is a "no ARP" interface, but in some 3G+ it is not PPP.

Yes, the client just sends it down the tube.

But no, the Client can't set up that default route when all is being
given is "0.0.0.0".  It must tell the interface name.  The Client by
itself is not capable to decide how to insert that default router entry
in its routing table, it just can't solve "0.0.0.0" on some interface
name so it must be told the interface name by some spec or mechanism.

Alex

>
> Simon

_______________________________________________
mif mailing list
mif@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif