IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] RFC6459 "IPv6 in 3GPP" - the IID in the LL address

<mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> Mon, 10 July 2017 12:49 UTC

Return-Path: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D5E212741D for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Jul 2017 05:49:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.62
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.62 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=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 vI0cv7G95Ijn for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Jul 2017 05:49:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relais-inet.orange.com (mta239.mail.business.static.orange.com [80.12.66.39]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 95EBD120724 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Jul 2017 05:49:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from opfedar04.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.6]) by opfedar26.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 1C4401C3BAB; Mon, 10 Jul 2017 14:49:40 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from Exchangemail-eme2.itn.ftgroup (unknown [xx.xx.31.3]) by opfedar04.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id F21FD40086; Mon, 10 Jul 2017 14:49:39 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::60a9:abc3:86e6:2541]) by OPEXCLILM5D.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::9898:741c:bc1d:258d%19]) with mapi id 14.03.0352.000; Mon, 10 Jul 2017 14:49:39 +0200
From: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
To: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>, "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] RFC6459 "IPv6 in 3GPP" - the IID in the LL address
Thread-Index: AQHS+WT3otBN7zfZMk2dZFSkARCJuqJNAJ/A
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2017 12:49:39 +0000
Message-ID: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93300A002E21@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <937f22f6-e4b7-b398-9df9-79c36ea2d7ee@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <937f22f6-e4b7-b398-9df9-79c36ea2d7ee@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.168.234.5]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/DfEJjRubMhrNiLd1dh8A_53z054>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] RFC6459 "IPv6 in 3GPP" - the IID in the LL address
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Mon, 10 Jul 2017 12:49:43 -0000

Hi Alex, 

Please see inline. 

Cheers,
Med

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : v6ops [mailto:v6ops-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de Alexandre
> Petrescu
> Envoyé : lundi 10 juillet 2017 12:12
> À : v6ops@ietf.org
> Objet : [v6ops] RFC6459 "IPv6 in 3GPP" - the IID in the LL address
> 
> Hi,
> 
> The INFORMATIONAL RFC6459 "IPv6 in 3GPP" contains this paragraph:
> > The 3GPP network allocates each default bearer a unique /64 prefix,
> > and uses layer-2 signaling to suggest to the UE an Interface
> > Identifier that is guaranteed not to conflict with the gateway's
> > Interface Identifier.  The UE must configure its link-local address
> > using this Interface Identifier.
> 
> I disagree that the UE must configure its LL using this IID.  Where is
> this requirement from?
> 

[Med] This is part of 3GPP spec. The GGSN/PGW selects an IID to be used when forming the link-local address. The goal is called in 3GPP specs :

"in order to avoid any conflict between the link-local address of the MS and that of the GGSN, the Interface-Identifier used by the MS to build its link-local address shall be assigned by the GGSN. The GGSN ensures the uniqueness of this interface-identifier. The MT shall then enforce the use of this Interface-Identifier by the TE."

BTW, this was inspired by https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5072#section-5: 

   As long as the interface identifier is negotiated in the IPV6CP phase
   of the PPP connection setup, it is redundant to perform duplicate
   address detection (DAD) as a part of the IPv6 Stateless Address
   Autoconfiguration protocol [3] on the IPv6 link-local address
   generated by the PPP peer.


> The UE should be allowed to form an IID at its will, if so it wishes.

[Med] It is allowed to do so...for non link-local addresses. 

> 
> This has consequences on privacy, and may impact interoperability when
> DHCPv6-PD is used later in the process.

[Med] I don't follow you here. There is no privacy concern out there. The IID used when forming a global IPv6 address will be selected by the terminal; no assumption is made about those bits. 

> 
> Also, this being an INFORMATIONAL document, in no case a party
> implementing it could impose it on some other party.
> 
> Alex
> 
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email