IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Focused discussion: draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host

"VAN DE VELDE, Gunter (Gunter)" <gunter.van_de_velde@alcatel-lucent.com> Thu, 07 January 2016 09:51 UTC

Return-Path: <gunter.van_de_velde@alcatel-lucent.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 981691A885F for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Jan 2016 01:51:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.858
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.858 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DC_IMAGE_SPAM_HTML=0.81, DC_IMAGE_SPAM_TEXT=0.242, DC_PNG_UNO_LARGO=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 NSsW6Ah5bc1W for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Jan 2016 01:51:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp-fr.alcatel-lucent.com (fr-hpida-esg-02.alcatel-lucent.com [135.245.210.21]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C61811A885B for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Jan 2016 01:51:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fr712usmtp2.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (unknown [135.239.2.42]) by Websense Email Security Gateway with ESMTPS id 81C232857731A; Thu, 7 Jan 2016 09:50:57 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from FR711WXCHHUB02.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (fr711wxchhub02.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com [135.239.2.112]) by fr712usmtp2.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO) with ESMTP id u079owQc025530 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 7 Jan 2016 10:50:59 +0100
Received: from FR711WXCHMBA05.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([169.254.1.213]) by FR711WXCHHUB02.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.239.2.112]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Thu, 7 Jan 2016 10:50:58 +0100
From: "VAN DE VELDE, Gunter (Gunter)" <gunter.van_de_velde@alcatel-lucent.com>
To: "Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>, "draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host@tools.ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] Focused discussion: draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host
Thread-Index: AQHRRrIF1AJWfg9CNUOFmoSBK+04DZ7vFi6A///F1ICAAPhpgA==
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2016 09:50:57 +0000
Message-ID: <E0AC9F63-5C23-4E79-8B5F-63E3168AE162@alcatel-lucent.com>
References: <201601031900.u03J0LMe009763@irp-lnx1.cisco.com> <CAKD1Yr3RY1oUtQnN675djc22f7B1Fhx0Ntsmr9rmZVEqmygRDg@mail.gmail.com> <D2B2F846.63BCC%evyncke@cisco.com> <2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D9831832F9ADDE@XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com>
In-Reply-To: <2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D9831832F9ADDE@XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [135.239.27.38]
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="_002_E0AC9F635C234E798B5F63E3168AE162alcatellucentcom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/5j_c_WFlCRVrAmp-UB14c9l3BoQ>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 09 Jan 2016 17:24:15 -0800
Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org WG" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Focused discussion: draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2016 09:51:04 -0000

Hi Fred,


The WLAN-GW should not care about overlap here, there is a split horizon function and the wlan-gw should be able to handle overlapping IPs. Link-local address may be stored to e.g. use when sending RA, but it should not be used as a key, that is the role of the MAC address. So as long as MAC addresses don't overlap there should not be a problem distinguishing UEs.


That being said, it would be unlikely to happen since link-local addresses in a WiFi context are mostly EUI-64 based and thus encode the MAC address which as stated should be unique.

Kind Regards,
G/






On 06/01/16 21:01, "Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> wrote:

>I have what I hope will be a simple question: what if two or more UEs configure
>identical IPv6 link-local addresses - will the WLAN-GW be able to tell them apart?
>Asked another way, what kind of unique node identifier does the WLAN-GW
>expect each UE to provide in the initial RS?
>
>Thanks - Fred
>fred.l.templin@boeing.com

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email