Re: [v6ops] draft-lmhp-v6ops-transition-comparison-06

[Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

I forgot to say something...

Le 26/03/2021 à 16:12, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ a écrit :
[...]
> I agree that ideally, we should have DHCPv6-PD, and in some pilot
> scenarios, I've used it. We have talked about this many times. 

That rich discussion was not overlooked by me.

We worked, tested and wrote with a colleague an entire Internet Draft 
about how to do DHCPv6-PD and PDP protocol on a 4G link, describing more 
precisely the different computers and software that takes part in that 
protocol.

What I think that might have worked for you is the model where a 4G USB 
dongle is plugged on a laptop in our experiments.

So all I can do is to ask you for confirmation?  Was that on an USB key?

> 
>    Additional experiments with using of USB dongle were performed.  The
>    following figure illustrates the successful DHCPv6-PD test on Orange
>    with dongle.  It uses a Huawei E392 USB dongle on laptop (and not the
>    Sierra Wireless mangOH Red).
> 
> 
>                      +---------------+       |
>                      |      PGW      |       |
>                      |   Delegating  |       |
>                      |     Router    |       |
>                      +---------------+       |
>                              |               |
>                              |               |
>                      +---------------+       |
>                      |      SGW      |       | Cellular infrastructure
>                      +---------------+       |
>                              |               |
>                              |               |
>                      +---------------+       |
>                      |    eNodeB     |       |
>                      +---------------+       |
>                              |               |
>                              |               |
>                              ~               ~  Wireless OFDMA 3G/4G
>                              |               |
>                      +---------------+       |
>                      |   +--------+  |       |
>                      |   |  E392  |  |       |
>                      |   |  USB   |  |       |
>                      |   | dongle |  |       |
>                      |   +--------+  |       |
>                      |       |       |       | User Equipment
>                      |   +--------+  |       |
>                      |   | Laptop |  |       |
>                      |   +--------+  |       |
>                      |               |       |
>                      +---------------+       |

Alex

It is
> not blocked by "hardware" but may be by baseband modem firmware.
> 
> 
>> One example of this was, a few years ago, the contract awarded to 
>> Telefónica for 53 millions of gas and electricity meters in UK,
>> worth 1.5 billion pounds in 15 years, using cellular and 6LOWPAN.
>> If they have done it with IPv4, they will have needed 34 million
>> NATs, according to their own calculations.
> 
> The IoT devices that I acquire on the market dont do 6lowpan.  There
> are indeed many 6lowpan devices but there are also many other IoT
> devices that connect on 4G, have Bluetooth/WiFi/Ethernet/Galileo and
> yet dont do 6lowpan.
> 
> -> Those devices don't deserve the right to be called IoT then. A
> real IoT devices must have IPv6 support.
> 
>> https://www.google.com/search?q=telefonica+awarded+uk+meters
>> 
>> Now, if you want to make it more complex, and you really need to
>> keep IPv4 incoming connections, you can still configure the NAT64
>> for that, either for specific ports or addresses. However, as said,
>> it doesn't make sense to use IPv4 for new deployments of
>> "anything".
> 
> If I _have_ to do NAT, then NAT44 is largely sufficient.  There is
> no need for v4-v6 transition mechanisms (I mean not in these trials
> I consider).
> 
> -> It is utopic to believe that NAT44 will keep scaling ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you
> ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6
> Company
> 
> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged
> or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive
> use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty
> authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents
> of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is
> strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you
> are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying,
> distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if
> partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be
> considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original
> sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________ v6ops mailing list 
> [e-mail] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>