Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile-17.txt - DHCP-PD

Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com> Fri, 20 February 2015 12:24 UTC

Return-Path: <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.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 269981A036E for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Feb 2015 04:24:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.083
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.083 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, J_CHICKENPOX_32=0.6, MANGLED_TOOL=2.3, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=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 JPp2x_j-Xyca for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Feb 2015 04:24:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cirse-out.extra.cea.fr (cirse-out.extra.cea.fr [132.167.192.142]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 196041A8963 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Feb 2015 04:17:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by cirse.extra.cea.fr (8.14.2/8.14.2/CEAnet-Internet-out-2.3) with ESMTP id t1KCHIxA020436; Fri, 20 Feb 2015 13:17:18 +0100
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 2A783202B58; Fri, 20 Feb 2015 13:18:25 +0100 (CET)
Received: from muguet1.intra.cea.fr (muguet1.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.6]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 146F7202B54; Fri, 20 Feb 2015 13:18:25 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (is010446-4.intra.cea.fr [10.8.33.116]) by muguet1.intra.cea.fr (8.13.8/8.13.8/CEAnet-Intranet-out-1.2) with ESMTP id t1KCHHPU021286; Fri, 20 Feb 2015 13:17:18 +0100
Message-ID: <54E725CD.1080005@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2015 13:17:17 +0100
From: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Kossut Tomasz - Hurt <Tomasz.Kossut@orange.com>, jouni korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>, Ross Chandler <ross@eircom.net>
References: <20150212124226.3282.9774.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <6536E263028723489CCD5B6821D4B21303DEA4B0@UK30S005EXS06.EEAD.EEINT.CO.UK> <54DDF37D.1050405@gmail.com> <6536E263028723489CCD5B6821D4B21303DEA605@UK30S005EXS06.EEAD.EEINT.CO.UK> <54DE0BA8.8020908@gmail.com> <6536E263028723489CCD5B6821D4B21303DEA722@UK30S005EXS06.EEAD.EEINT.CO.UK> <54DE227D.9050303@gmail.com> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93300490B969@OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <A0BB7AD89EA705449C486BDB5FDCBC7B2851152A@OPE10MB06.tp.gk.corp.tepenet> <54E1D42C.5040605@gmail.com> <A0BB7AD89EA705449C486BDB5FDCBC7B28511B64@OPE10MB06.tp.gk.corp.tepenet> <54E48C2E.2020703@gmail.com> <CAC8SSWswVfT2KZF-L-TJveszJ5SZn_1xuMvwG_aP2-CHw5erjg@mail.gmail.com> <F40B1638-F988-4B81-8D74-F40AE13ACDA7@eircom.net> <CAC8SSWsh8E8OXLYACktfQEonBDAJ2U5-CcSenvVgG4En0UPhfw@mail.gmail.com> <A0BB7AD89EA705449C486BDB5FDCBC7B28512185@OPE10MB06.tp.gk.corp.tepenet>
In-Reply-To: <A0BB7AD89EA705449C486BDB5FDCBC7B28512185@OPE10MB06.tp.gk.corp.tepenet>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/Eenslc7P0xknc-cvzs0XIPWwp6o>
Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile-17.txt - DHCP-PD
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Fri, 20 Feb 2015 12:24:07 -0000

I find the description of the EIT bit (allow multiple APNs, IPv4
and/or IPv6) a tempting feature.

Can the EIT bit be set by using open-source software tools?  For
example, when I connect a linux computer to a 4G network I use
ModemManager and mmcli open source software, on a cheap USB 4G key.

Or is the EIT bit proprietary to one operator and smartphone manufacturer?

Alex

Le 20/02/2015 12:09, Kossut Tomasz - Hurt a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> IMHO EIT settings should be part of customization – vendor&generic
> controlled by (MCCMNC) just like APN settings it has direct impact
> in HPLMN on IP (IPv4) allocation.
>
> If network has IPv4 default bearer and EIT bit is not enabled in
> IPv6 terminals it results in default bearer activation and
> “selected”(IPv6) bearer activation, IPv6 terminal in a network with
> IPv4 default bearer will always establish 2 bearers. It’s observed
> in HPLMN for generic Google devices in our network:
>
> vvvvvv CALLID   MSID            USERNAME IP TIME-IDLE
>
> ------ -------- --------------- ----------------------
> ----------------------------- ---------
>
> xTC.AT 0c3a069c 26003000000000 n/a 2a00:f41:XXXX:XXX::4d1d:7001
> 00h00m02s
>
> xTC.AI 0c3a069c 26003000000000 n/a                    10.000.000.000
> 00h00m02s
>
> IPv6 subscriber is allocating unwanted IPv4 resource here - this
> apply to HPLMN only.
>
> For VPLMN (roaming LTE) situation  gets complicated if you choose to
> use IPv4 for VPLMN (APN settings - use IPv4 when roaming)
>
> Terminal in LTE with EIT bit=1 located in VPLMN will always request
> “selected” IPv6 bearer for attach (terminal attaching in LTE has no
> idea whether this is HPLMN or VPLMN) once terminal learned ”I’m in
> roaming” according to APN settings(use IPv4 when roaming) terminal
> will establish secondary IPv4 bearer –it results in multiple bearer
> activation…
>
> Cheers,
>
> TK
>
> *From:*jouni korhonen [mailto:jouni.nospam@gmail.com] *Sent:*
> Thursday, February 19, 2015 9:31 PM *To:* Ross Chandler *Cc:*
> Alexandru Petrescu; v6ops@ietf.org; Kossut Tomasz - Hurt *Subject:*
> Re: [v6ops] I-D Action:
> draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile-17.txt - DHCP-PD
>
> I still fail to see how EIT setting relates to IPv6 as a
> requirement. It is a normal procedure when the UE wants to connect
> (during the initial attach) to another APN than the default one.
>
> - Jouni
>
> On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 12:48 PM, Ross Chandler <ross@eircom.net
> <mailto:ross@eircom.net>> wrote:
>
> On 18 Feb 2015, at 16:47, jouni korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com
> <mailto:jouni.nospam@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 4:57 AM, Alexandru Petrescu
> <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com <mailto:alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>>
>  wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Le 18/02/2015 12:13, Kossut Tomasz - Hurt a écrit :
>
> Hi,
>
> Inline comments:
>
> Hi,
>
> Thank you for the report. It is good to see how good consideration
> is given to IPv6, and the two separated paths IPv4/IPv6.
>
> It is encouraging to see numerous smartphone manufacturers having
> embraced the CLAT technology.
>
> (tk) - this is not only CLAT, (CLAT is in generic Android thanks to
> Lorenzo, Cameron, Dan & others) each vendor has its own
> customization based on MCCMNC/region to control "features" per
> operator. In our case we have :  dedicated clatd.conf (not generic
> one), IPv6 tethering(DHCPv6, RA, Relay IPv6 DNS)
>
>
> It's good to see these mentioned.
>
> For tethering - is the network offering DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation
> service?  Or is the device performing '64share' RFC7278?
>
> There are some advantages on doing the former rather than the
> latter.
>
> EIT bit =1,
>
>
> What is the EIT bit?
>
> My wild guess is that it is the ESM information transfer flag bit in
>  the ESM information transfer flag information element. If it is, it
>  does not really have anything to do with IPv6 IMHO.
>
> - Jouni
>
> As far as I can tell from a previous answer on v6ops by Orange PL
> the EIT bit (think it is ESM info transfer flag IE) has an effect
> when the HSS has a default APN different from the one requested by
> the UE. Without the EIT bit set the network doesn’t let the UE
> requested APN override the default from the HSS, so two PDN
> connections are set up, one with IPv4 (assuming the default is an
> IPv4 only APN) and the other IPv6 (assuming that was requested by the
> UE).  So strictly speaking it does look independent of IP version but
> it is being noticed as operators introduce IPv6.
>
> Ross
>